MBNA Time Barred Letter

squirt

Hi All,

I recently emailed MBNA via Resolver about PPI on the OH's credit card. MBNA have replied saying that they sent a letter in 2013 which explained that if there were any concerns to contact them within 3 years and as she didn't her complaint is now time barred under Rule 2.8.2. The OH is adamant that she never received the letter. Has anyone successfully challenged MBNA over this time bar and got them to reconsider?

Thanks in advance
.

Agricolae

She may struggle as what they're saying about this rule is correct. The rule basically says a person has got 6 years from the date PPI was mis-sold, or 3 years from when they knew (or should have known) it was likely to have been mis-sold (whichever is longer), to make a complaint. MBNA sending her that letter started a 3 year countdown.

The only thing she could do really is show the letter was sent to the wrong person or to the wrong address. Only a very small percentage of mail gets lost in the post so it will be hard to convince MBNA of this.

[Deleted User]

squirt wrote: »

The OH is adamant that she never received the letter. Has anyone successfully challenged MBNA over this time bar and got them to reconsider?

Even the Ombudsman cannot overturn a properly applied time bar. If the letter was properly addressed to the recipient and sent more than three years ago, there is little that can be done. This is the very reason CCLs were sent in the first place.

Nasqueron

As above, unless the address they had on record for you is wrong, you have no chance of overturning the 3 year time bar (and even then, you may struggle to get them to overturn it even at the FOS), all the bank need to do is prove they sent the letter and it's deemed delivered 2 days later (if sent first class) - clearly you could have the letter in front of you and simply claim you didn't so the onus is on them to show it was sent and after that their part is done.

squirt

Clutching at straws I know, however I've read this on another forum and thought it was interesting.

The only way the FOS will overturn the timebar decision is if you can demonstrate that the statement entries did not make it clear that PPI was being added. So for example, if the statement entry said "Payment Protection Insurance" you would not have any argument. But if the entry said "PPP charge" or "Paymentcare", you would have an argument that it is unclear what this actually is.

The second issue is the additional correspondence that MBNA state they sent.
a. did they send it to your correct address and if they did
b. was it made clear that paymet protection insurance was added to your card. Most of the junk mail did not make it clear - it just tried to sell you more products or a higher credit limit.

So I would do 2 things before going to FOS.

1. Ask MBNA to tell you exactly how the PPI was itemised on your statements and that any entry specifically stated "payment protection insurance".
2. Ask MBNA to provide proof that they sent mailings to your correct address at the time AND ask them for copies of what was sent so you can check they made it absolutely clear that PPI was added to your card.

I know from experience that MBNA will struggle to do these things and by virtue of you querying this, they will know you have more knowledge than most DIY claimants - so they may uphold. Otherwise go to FOS with your arguments for why the presence of PPI was ambiguous or unclear.

Nasqueron

squirt wrote: »

Clutching at straws I know, however I've read this on another forum and thought it was interesting.

It's straw clutching of the highest order, almost as bad as those freeman of the land morons prattling on about legal names and such. The fact their product may not have been called PPI specifically is irrelevant and all they have to do is show proof they sent the letter and can provide a copy or a reconstituted one (does not have to be the original) and FOS will accept the time bar.

If MBNA sent you a letter inviting you to complain about PPI (regardless of what their branding was called) and you didn't respond it triggers the legal 3 year time bar clock

dunstonh

The only way the FOS will overturn the timebar decision is if you can demonstrate that the statement entries did not make it clear that PPI was being added. So for example, if the statement entry said "Payment Protection Insurance" you would not have any argument. But if the entry said "PPP charge" or "Paymentcare", you would have an argument that it is unclear what this actually is.

The entries on the statement do not trigger the timebar. The letter is the thing that does that.

The second issue is the additional correspondence that MBNA state they sent.
a. did they send it to your correct address and if they did
b. was it made clear that paymet protection insurance was added to your card. Most of the junk mail did not make it clear - it just tried to sell you more products or a higher credit limit.

The CCL has to comply with certain requirements. Including telling you that you have PPI and that you have the right to complain if you feel it was mis-sold.

So I would do 2 things before going to FOS.

1. Ask MBNA to tell you exactly how the PPI was itemised on your statements and that any entry specifically stated "payment protection insurance".
2. Ask MBNA to provide proof that they sent mailings to your correct address at the time AND ask them for copies of what was sent so you can check they made it absolutely clear that PPI was added to your card.

1 - this is totally irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the timebar.
2 - a fair request. Although CCL content was defined by 2013. So, it would have to be a pretty bad error by them. I do note that the FOS have ruled on MBNA timebars as being valid.

jellie

squirt wrote: »

Clutching at straws I know, however I've read this on another forum and thought it was interesting.

The other forum response appears to be a reply to someone who has already complained to MBNA and been rejected. I suspect the timebar they are referring to is the FOS six month one, not the three year one which MBNA have applied to your situation.

Borgie1234

I am in a similar position.

I asked MBNA for a copy of the letter they sent me in 2013 they say they cant do that as they havent got it any more

The FOS says they need to see the letter to ensure it contained the correct wording/warnings and was addressed correctly etc . I haven't referred my complaint to them yet this was a general enquiry. They said if MBNA cant prove they sent it then the chances are they would uphold my complaint.

I called back MBNA and they said their system shows I was sent a letter to the correct address but they don't have the letter .

Where do you think this leaves me please?

[Deleted User]

Borgie1234 wrote: »

I called back MBNA and they said their system shows I was sent a letter to the correct address but they don't have the letter .

Where do you think this leaves me please?

While the bank may not have the actual letter they sent you, if you refer your "complaint" to FOS then the Bank are allowed to provide them with a facsimile template of the letter that would have been sent to you.
If the FOS deem the time bar correctly applied, then they can do nothing to overturn it.

dunstonh

The FOS says they need to see the letter to ensure it contained the correct wording/warnings and was addressed correctly etc . I haven't referred my complaint to them yet this was a general enquiry. They said if MBNA cant prove they sent it then the chances are they would uphold my complaint.

The FOS do not require to see the actual letter copy. The template MBNA used is sufficient.

I am surprised that the FOS have even looked at your complaint yet and told you that they would uphold it without it. Normally, if the firm has timebarred it, they will not look at the complaint until after the timebar has been verified or not. Are you sure they said they would uphold it? Rather than being told that they would instruct MBNA to review your complaint (as after all, MBNA havent reviewed your complaint due to timebar).