Studio Cards

Syd63

I have received this reply to request from Studio cards Can anyone advise if I can do anything. thanks in advance

I would like to thank you for your patience whilst we reviewed your complaint.
You may recall from our previous communications that in November 2014, The Supreme Court ruled in Plevin that the failure by the lender to disclose to Mrs Plevin the large commissions payable out of her PPI premium made its relationship with her unfair under s.140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).

The above case created uncertainty for firms about how the judgement should be taken into account in the context of PPI complaints. This has resulted in the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issuing consultation papers within the industry with a proposal to amend its existing complaint handling rules to take the court ruling into consideration. I’m pleased to confirm that the FCA has now issued a policy statement (final rules) about how firms should handle PPI related complaints, therefore we now issue our findings below.
Your catalogue shopping account with us
Our records reflect that you opened a catalogue shopping account with us on 03 August 1999. At the time, you agreed to be bound by a credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. According to our records, I can confirm that PPI was not incorporated into the credit agreement.
Your insurance policy with us
You took out an optional insurance policy which provided you and partner, where applicable, with the benefit of merchandise cover, life, disability (accident and sickness), hospitalisation and unemployment insurance, to protect your account repayments to us. I can see that the policy was taken out 18 June 2001 and subsequently cancelled on 09 January 2007. Premiums were charged every 28 days where you held an outstanding balance with us, but it was not directly linked to the credit agreement.
The sale of the insurance policy
The policy was sold prior to 14 January 2005 which was the date when general insurance contracts became regulated and had to meet standards set out by the regulator. Prior to this date, there was no statutory (legal) duty for us to assess your needs and suitability for the policy.
The disclosure of commission
At the time of sale, there was no statutory obligation for us to disclose commission to you. Whilst the regulator imposed minimum standards of conduct on the sale of insurance policies from 14 January 2005.

Summary

Following publication of the Supreme Court ruling, together with the FCA’s policy statement, I am unable to uphold this complaint in the absence of a statutory duty or standards of conduct surrounding the sale of an insurance policy at the time we sold it.

In addition, it is with regret, I do need to inform you that this complaint falls outside the complaint handling rules set by the FCA because the policy was sold prior to 14 January 2005. This means that the Financial Ombudsman Service may not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of this complaint.
Closing

In closing, I would like to thank you again for your patience and understanding while we waited for the FCA to issue a policy statement which provided the clarification we needed to be able to make an informed decision.

[Deleted User]

Syd63 wrote: »

Can anyone advise if I can do anything. thanks in advance

You didn't actually have PPI, but another type of insurance entirely.

You therefore won't be getting a Plevin refund.

I don't think Studio could make it any clearer.

Your "PPI" complaint is also pre-regulation of general insurance sales in 2005, so you have no recourse to the Ombudsman.

Sorry.

Placida

Syd63 wrote: »

I have received this reply to request from Studio cards Can anyone advise if I can do anything. thanks in advance

Our records reflect that you opened a catalogue shopping account with us on 03 August 1999. At the time, you agreed to be bound by a credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. According to our records, I can confirm that PPI was not incorporated into the credit agreement.
Your insurance policy with us
You took out an optional insurance policy which provided you and partner, where applicable, with the benefit of merchandise cover, life, disability (accident and sickness), hospitalisation and unemployment insurance, to protect your account repayments to us. I can see that the policy was taken out 18 June 2001 and subsequently cancelled on 09 January 2007. Premiums were charged every 28 days where you held an outstanding balance with us, but it was not directly linked to the credit agreement.
The sale of the insurance policy
The policy was sold prior to 14 January 2005 which was the date when general insurance contracts became regulated and had to meet standards set out by the regulator. Prior to this date, there was no statutory (legal) duty for us to assess your needs and suitability for the policy.
The disclosure of commission
At the time of sale, there was no statutory obligation for us to disclose commission to you. Whilst the regulator imposed minimum standards of conduct on the sale of insurance policies from 14 January 2005.

Summary

Following publication of the Supreme Court ruling, together with the FCA’s policy statement, I am unable to uphold this complaint in the absence of a statutory duty or standards of conduct surrounding the sale of an insurance policy at the time we sold it.

In addition, it is with regret, I do need to inform you that this complaint falls outside the complaint handling rules set by the FCA because the policy was sold prior to 14 January 2005. This means that the Financial Ombudsman Service may not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of this complaint.

Studio seem to be saying that as you did not take out your PPI when you opened your catalogue shopping account with them on 03 August 1999 but later in 2001, the policy was not “directly connected” or “directly linked” to the credit agreement. Therefore they do not think you have a “relevant complaint in respect of a PPI policy covering a credit agreement under s.140A, that a failure to disclose a commission of 50% or more gave rise to an unfair relationship under s.140A.”

Syd63 wrote: »

This means that the Financial Ombudsman Service may not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of this complaint.

Contact the FOS for clarification of this.