We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Re-claiming PPI as had great employment and income protection insurance
Options
Comments
-
It is very important to tell them that you were unaware you could complain until now because of the three and six year rule.
The 3/6 year rule wouldnt not be overruled if you say you didnt know you could complain until now. So, adding it to a complaint is irrelevant. The OP has already complained and has had their complaint considered. So, the firm is not using the 3/6 year rule to timebar it.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Accepted. I rephrase, "putting the point in will help MITIGATE the chances (not completely eradicate) of them using EITHER the three or six-year rule." as stated above.0
-
Except they're not time barring it.....Non me fac calcitrare tuum culi0
-
Accepted. I rephrase, "putting the point in will help MITIGATE the chances (not completely eradicate) of them using EITHER the three or six-year rule." as stated above.
No it won't
Full stop.
I'm sure you heard this at your CMC induction / training but it's irrelevant.
It's actually fascinating seeing how CMC staff work as it explains why complaints are more likely to be rejected vs complaining yourself - loads of irrelevant waffle and factually incorrect stuff.
Why would you even bother mentioning the 3 year rule which might make the bank think about it when they previously wouldn't have done.
Either way, it's irrelevant as the 3 year rule will not, and will never, be bypassed by you pretending you didn't know you could complain about PPI
As I have stated above, the 6 year rule is six years from taking out the policy, it's fixed and nothing to do with PPI complaining - if you took it out 28/2/2011 then it's 6 years since and thus the time bar is in effect no matter what you writeSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
''The complaints handling rules already set time limits for consumers to make complaints about financial products. These time limits are generally six years from the event the consumer is complaining about or, if later, three years from when the consumer knew, or could reasonably have known, they had cause to complain. In the case of PPI, because many consumers did not know they had been mis-sold PPI, these time limits may not yet be triggered.''
https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-finalise-plans-place-deadline-ppi-complaints0 -
Alpine_Star wrote: »''The complaints handling rules already set time limits for consumers to make complaints about financial products. These time limits are generally six years from the event the consumer is complaining about or, if later, three years from when the consumer knew, or could reasonably have known, they had cause to complain. In the case of PPI, because many consumers did not know they had been mis-sold PPI, these time limits may not yet be triggered.''
https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-finalise-plans-place-deadline-ppi-complaints
If the bank has written to the customer with a CCL or similar advising of the policy, they can invoke the 3 year rule, the FOS accept this as a trigger. It's why many packaged account complaints are being rejected now as the banks are thorough in sending out welcome packs and annual statements with details of the package benefits and telling people how to change if they wish to, thus invoking the 3 year ruleSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
But all this is a moot point because the firm in this thread are not invoking the 3/6 year timebar. So, raising it with the FOS after a rejection is totally pointless.
And even if it was a new complaint it is still pointless as saying you didnt know would not overrule a valid timebar either. It is just adding unnecessary text to a letter.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Except they're not time barring it.....
"Helper1" isn't helping very much.
The Bank have rejected the complaint on the basis that the OP agreed to the insurance. There is therefore no point in the OP saying she didn't know she could complain before now as that is irrelevant.
There is also no question in the OP's post suggesting that the Bank are invoking any kind of time-bar.
First read posts #4 and #7, these are the only useful answers concerning your personal situation so far in your thread. I strongly advise you to ignore "Helper1"DebtbustingDiva wrote: »Oh, thanks, I will continue with this claim then.0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »"Helper1" isn't helping very much.
The Bank have rejected the complaint on the basis that the OP agreed to the insurance. There is therefore no point in the OP saying she didn't know she could complain before now as that is irrelevant.
There is also no question in the OP's post suggesting that the Bank are invoking any kind of time-bar.
First read posts #4 and #7, these are the only useful answers concerning your personal situation so far in your thread. I strongly advise you to ignore "Helper1"
It got a bit off topic because helper1 is a typical CMC employee, doesn't read the post properly, suggests nonsense and adds in unhelpful or wrong stuffSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards