Response back from BMW Financial Services-REJECTION

wezzinc

Hi.. I`ve recently use Resolver to open a PPI check case with BMW Financial Services. They`ve sent me a letter back in response to this and they say I did purchase a BMW-branded policy when taking out an agreement in 2004.

However they have put this in the letter:

We confirm that our records show you did purchase a BMW-branded policy when taking our your agreement, and it was active from 25/06/2004 to 25/07/2007. This means it was not active during the FCA's eligible timeframe.

More information about this exclusion can be found on the FCA's website at:
.fca.org.uk-ppi-eligible-claim-commission

For this reason, we cannot uphold your complaint.

I`m assuming the are referring to this part of the page:

You may be eligible to get back some money if your PPI policy covered repayments on a credit agreement – like a credit card, loan or mortgage – and you:

• took it out before 6 April 2007, but it was still open on or after 6 April 2008 (even if you had stopped using it)
• took it out on or after 6 April 2007 (whether or not it was still open on or after 6 April 2008)

Can I ask if this is correct, that just because my agreement falls between these years that I can`t make any claim, or are they using this web page extract to blag me off making the claim?

Hope you can help!!!!:(:(:(

[Deleted User]

The information is correct.

dunstonh

As frequently mentioned on this site (almost daily), car dealers were not regulated until 14th January 2005. Sales made before that date are pre-regulation and dealers were not members of an earlier body (which is why banks have to consider earlier complaints).

Can I ask if this is correct, that just because my agreement falls between these years that I can`t make any claim, or are they using this web page extract to blag me off making the claim?

They are correct. If the sale was made by a firm that was not regulated at the point of sale then regulations from the regulator do not apply. However, your linking of the dates given to a rejection are wrong. Those dates apply to Plevin cases. That is a second stage issue for rejected complaints. In your case, had you still owed money to them on or after 6th April 2008, you may have been entitled to a part refund.