Is there a historic time limit for PPI?

Mallers

Hello,
I bought a car on HP in 2007, with an initial lump sumand the rest paid off over 36 months. I was advised to take out a policy which would mean if the car was written off and I still had money owing, I could claim the difference so I wasn't out of pocket. That's was my understanding of it anyway.
After seeing all the PPI ads I contacted the finance company who returned some money from the commission element and forwarded my details to the dealership. The dealership replied after a while saying that as the claim was old, they were not obliged to look at I, so didn't. Is that correct?
The exact wording was FCA rule DISP 2.8.2 the Ombudsman cannot consider a complaint if it was bought :
a) More than 6 years adfter the event complaint of, or (if later)
b) More than 3 years from the date on which the Complainant became aware (or ought to reasonably to have become aware) that they had cause for complaint

So IF above is correct AND the dealership is interpreting it correctly, given that their argument is I should have known within the last 3 years, it seems there can be a 3 year historic time limit for claims.
Can this be correct, or am I or the dealership misinterpreting things?
Other drawback is I no longer have the paperwork!

dunstonh

Is there a historic time limit for PPI?

Technically no. However, there are some timebars or date issues in some cases.

I bought a car on HP in 2007

This is key. Car dealers became regulated after 14th January 2005. So, you are in the period of regulation. Its pre-regulation cases with dealers that have issues.

I was advised to take out a policy which would mean if the car was written off and I still had money owing, I could claim the difference so I wasn't out of pocket. That's was my understanding of it anyway.

That is not PPI.

The dealership replied after a while saying that as the claim was old, they were not obliged to look at I, so didn't. Is that correct?

The 3 and 6 year timebar rules do exist but they need something specific to trigger them. They both need to apply. not one or the other. The 6 year rule is clearly met. 6 years was 2013. (6 years from sale). However, there is nothing to suggest that 3 year rule is being met. It has to be a personalised event that triggered it. not generic (which is why PPI complaints can still be made all these years later).

So, their timebarring on the 3 year rule does not seem reasonable or correct.

However, as its not PPI and your complaint was about PPI then they could have just said that they are rejecting your complaint as its not PPI.

[Deleted User]

Mallers wrote: »

I was advised to take out a policy which would mean if the car was written off and I still had money owing, I could claim the difference so I wasn't out of pocket.

What you describe is Gap Insurance, not PPI.

In what manner do you think this policy was mis-sold to you?

Nasqueron

It's gap insurance. While dealership packages are poor value, the product itself is a good idea when cars are on finance

Mallers

Hi All, apologies for the delayed response and many thanks for the replies. Gap insurance sounds familiar. I don't have the original documents, so I am not sure if it was mis-sold or not. I recall the cases where policies (not for this I guess, wasn't aware when I posted the thread) that various policies were sold to people who would never satisfy all the criteria for being paid out, and I wasn't sure if I was one of them or not.
For me specifically, when the car dealership replied, they referred to the policy in the letter they wrote to me as PPI several times, so I thought it was a form of PPI (until I read these replies) and also the way they worded the letter led me to believe they were not going to investigate because I had breached some sort of time limit, as opposed to having investigated and concluded there was no mis-selling.
However as this is Gap Insurance (now that has been mentioned im fairly sure that is what it was) then I can assume its not covered by the PPI legislation and cannot have been mis-sold?

dunstonh

However as this is Gap Insurance (now that has been mentioned im fairly sure that is what it was) then I can assume its not covered by the PPI legislation and cannot have been mis-sold?

There is no PPI legislation. Everything to do with PPI is covered under the same rules as any regulated financial product.

Nasqueron

Mallers wrote: »

Hi All, apologies for the delayed response and many thanks for the replies. Gap insurance sounds familiar. I don't have the original documents, so I am not sure if it was mis-sold or not. I recall the cases where policies (not for this I guess, wasn't aware when I posted the thread) that various policies were sold to people who would never satisfy all the criteria for being paid out, and I wasn't sure if I was one of them or not.
For me specifically, when the car dealership replied, they referred to the policy in the letter they wrote to me as PPI several times, so I thought it was a form of PPI (until I read these replies) and also the way they worded the letter led me to believe they were not going to investigate because I had breached some sort of time limit, as opposed to having investigated and concluded there was no mis-selling.
However as this is Gap Insurance (now that has been mentioned im fairly sure that is what it was) then I can assume its not covered by the PPI legislation and cannot have been mis-sold?

It's possible to have both, just as you could leave the garage with tyre insurance, wheel insurance, seat cover insurance and anything else they can throw at you. GAP could be miss-sold yes but simply giving you bad value dealership insurance is not miss-selling