Lloyds refused ppi for not receiving letters!

NurseMoneySaver1122

So my partner recently submitted a PPI claim for 4 refinanced loans with Lloyds, the first dating back to around 2004.

He's just received a response upholding 1 of 4 of the loans. Lloyds are unable to review his complaint regarding the other 3 as they "received it outside the time limit for the submission of a complaint".

They're claiming that they wrote to him in July and August 2013 whereby they explained they had reviewed their PPI sales and his may have been mid-sold. However, my partner is ADAMANT he never received such letter from them!

The letter goes on to say "Where the PPI policy was sold more than 6 years ago, the FCA's complaint handling rules set a time limit of 3 years from the date the consumer is aware that they have cause to complain". So basically he's being penalised for not receiving a letter that they are claiming to have sent.

Incidentally, this very response letter wasn't originally received either! We had to call the bank to enquire about a PPI payment showing on his statement. And they stated he should have received a response letter a few weeks back. So they 're-sent' it!

So naturally we were going to refer to the FOS. But the letter makes a point to say that the ombudsman might not consider our complaint if:
- it happened more than 6 years ago, and
- You're complaining more than 3 years after you realised (or should have realised) there was a problem

So we feel utterly duped by Lloyds and don't know what to do next! What is stopping them claiming to have sent letters to thousands of people and getting out of claims this way over and over again!

Has anyone else had Lloyds make this same claim to them regarding an apparent letter that was sent?

Any advice about what we should do next from anyone would be super appreciated

Geoff1963

What is stopping them claiming to have sent letters to thousands of people and getting out of claims this way over and over again!

I'd have though the original mis-selling, and the FCA fines for bad complaint handling ; would suggest that the letters may well not have been properly sent.
Having said that, the letters weren't the only way to realise there was a problem, so the 3 year clock might have started earlier, or later :
Simply receiving a letter saying the bank has "reviewed their PPI sales and his may have been mid-sold" wouldn't necessarily make him "aware that they have cause to complain" ; that may need the finding of other information.

The FCA has put a final deadline on claims, I think 2018.

NurseMoneySaver1122

Exactly, that was my thought.

It just seems ludicrous that they can get away with declining PPI claims based on potentially fictitious letters that they sent.

On the other hand, maybe they did genuinely send the letter and we genuinely didn't receive it; after all, this did happen with the decision letter from them just last week. However, surely if they can use this as a reason to not pay out in a PPI claim, then there should be an expectation that they sent this out recorded delivery to ensure the recipient has in fact received them.

That would be a fair and more understandable reason for declining the claim

dunstonh

So naturally we were going to refer to the FOS. But the letter makes a point to say that the ombudsman might not consider our complaint if:
- it happened more than 6 years ago, and
- You're complaining more than 3 years after you realised (or should have realised) there was a problem

The FOS will only look at this complaint if they consider the timebar was incorrectly applied.

If Lloyds are saying they wrote out more than 3 years ago, then as long as the address was correct, then the timebar should be valid and the FOS will not allow the complaint to be looked at.

Has anyone else had Lloyds make this same claim to them regarding an apparent letter that was sent?

Yes they have. Timebar letters are very common and have been going out for longer than 3 years now.

Any advice about what we should do next from anyone would be super appreciated

You can ask the FOS to look at it. If they feel the timebar is valid, its game over. If they feel the timebar is wrong then they will instruct Lloyds to review the complaint.

Timebars have nothing to do with the proposed closing of PPI complaints.

It just seems ludicrous that they can get away with declining PPI claims based on potentially fictitious letters that they sent.

I disagree. If a firm writes out to people saying that they may have had an issue and gives examples and invites you to complain, then that is very strong information for you to act on. Generally, people without issues do not respond whilst those that do have issues use the letter as a trigger to raise their complaint.

However, surely if they can use this as a reason to not pay out in a PPI claim, then there should be an expectation that they sent this out recorded delivery to ensure the recipient has in fact received them.

It is not a reason to not pay out on a PPI "claim". It is a reason for not reviewing the complaint at all. It hasnt got as far as being looked at.

[Deleted User]

NurseMoneySaver1122 wrote: »

potentially fictitious letters

On what basis are you making such an accusation? The letters are definitely not "fictitious", any more than the claim that he did not receive them is "fictitious".

Is it not possible that your partner binned the letters without reading them?

Or has he simply forgotten about them?

The Banks records show that you were sent a CCL letter and you dispute this. I suggest you refer the stalemate to the Ombudsman. They will decide whether the time bar has been correctly applied. If the Bank have correct address details it's very likely the Ombudsman will side with the Bank I'm afraid.

Do realise that, even if the Ombudsman overrule the time bar, your complaint might still be rejected.

dunstonh

On what basis are you making such an accusation? The letters are definitely not "fictitious", any more than the claim that he did not receive them is "fictitious".

Is it not possible that your partner binned the letters without reading them?

Over the years, I have seen it so many times that where the person gets a letter from the bank, they ignore it as they assume its marketing.

Back in the endowment days, I was often asked about endowment complaints and would ask if they were timebarred or not. They would say no but I knew which providers were timebarring or not and when it was one that was, I asked to see their statements. I would then point out the red ink on the statement that warned them of their deadline to complain. They never read what was sent.

Just a few weeks ago I had someone ask me some questions as he thought I had set something up wrong. I had told him face to face of the issue before we proceeded and that I could resolve it but he said he could manage and we could always change it later. I put the issue and what would happen and how I could resolve it in my recommendation report which I posted to him. I know he got it as he emailed me to say he had read it. Then he phoned me up a few weeks ago on that very point asking why something had not happened. He had forgotten. Now that was just a payment frequency issue I could resolve with a simple form to change frequency but it highlights exactly how people forget or don't read what they are sent.

NurseMoneySaver1122

Thank you for the replies.

I wish I could say that he did just fail to read his mail, or that he ignored the letter, it would be a lot less frustrating, but he is super on top of that kind of thing.

We are being honest, so all I can do is refer to the FOS and simply tell our truth. I understand from the advise here not to be hopeful of the result, so I won't hold my breath. But tell the truth I will.

Thank you for the advice everyone

[Deleted User]

NurseMoneySaver1122 wrote: »

tell the truth I will.

The "truth" is that the Bank's records show they sent the letters and you believe they didn't arrive (or were never sent).

As I said earlier, a stalemate.

Your only hope is that the Bank sent the letters to the wrong address and that FOS therefore overrule the time bar.

Geoff1963

The PPI mis-seling scandal involved a lot of bad behaviour by the banks. The difficulty will be persuading the FOS or a court that they misbehaved in your case.

Whatever happens about the timing, you'd need a convincing argument that it was mis-sold. If the FOS don't think you have a case, they might not even take on the complaint.

[Deleted User]

Geoff1963 wrote: »

The PPI mis-seling scandal involved a lot of bad behaviour by the banks. The difficulty will be persuading the FOS or a court that they misbehaved in your case.

CCL letters are part of the attempts to draw a line under the PPI scandal. They are not in themselves an active part of that scandal and I've yet to see a proven case where a bank has "pretended" to send such letters.

The CCL letters have in fact caused thousands of people to complain who might otherwise not have.

Ultimately there will be a time bar on ALL future PPI complaints, and at that time I fully expect there will still be those who will say they have never heard of the mis-selling of this insurance.

HolmesM

I'd still take it to the FOS ... we received a similar letter (not from Lloyds), warning us that the FOS would not even consider our claim.

We still pursued it, and got the money in the end anyway. Even if you are in the wrong, chances are Lloyds will still offer something as it's not worth their time to fight all these cases.