We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Rejected PPI - Reasons and Time Barred?
Options
titusbungle
Posts: 52 Forumite
Hi,
My wife has had a PPI claim rejected by Santander for 2 store cards that she opened in 2002 and 2003. She didn't know that store cards were even being considered until a few weeks ago when in conversation she said about these cards, she knew that she'd had PPI on them as they'd told her that if she didn't then the applications would be rejected.
Anyhow, the letter received yesterday listed both decisions and stated a number of reasons which we dispute
-"There are grounds to conclude that you would have bought the policy in any event". Not true!
-"I can confirm that it has never been a requirement to take out a PPI policy for an account application to be accepted" We know that now!
-"Sufficient information was provided at the point of sale to allow you to make an informed decision whether or not to add PPI." Definitely not - the sales assistant didn't ask / explain anything
All of the above we can object / raise with the Ombudsman, where we are struggling are that they attached an extra two pages.
"In relation to your TopShop card... time-barred... you have six years from the point of sale" plus it also states "in addition you have three years from the date that you knew or ought to have known following "relevant knowledge"."
It then states "In relation to your Dorothy Perkins account.... time-barred.... you have fifteen years from the point of sale"
The TopShop card was September 2003 and the DP card was December 2002.
Does anyone have any further knowledge or understanding regarding the time-barred issue?
My wife has had a PPI claim rejected by Santander for 2 store cards that she opened in 2002 and 2003. She didn't know that store cards were even being considered until a few weeks ago when in conversation she said about these cards, she knew that she'd had PPI on them as they'd told her that if she didn't then the applications would be rejected.
Anyhow, the letter received yesterday listed both decisions and stated a number of reasons which we dispute
-"There are grounds to conclude that you would have bought the policy in any event". Not true!
-"I can confirm that it has never been a requirement to take out a PPI policy for an account application to be accepted" We know that now!
-"Sufficient information was provided at the point of sale to allow you to make an informed decision whether or not to add PPI." Definitely not - the sales assistant didn't ask / explain anything
All of the above we can object / raise with the Ombudsman, where we are struggling are that they attached an extra two pages.
"In relation to your TopShop card... time-barred... you have six years from the point of sale" plus it also states "in addition you have three years from the date that you knew or ought to have known following "relevant knowledge"."
It then states "In relation to your Dorothy Perkins account.... time-barred.... you have fifteen years from the point of sale"
The TopShop card was September 2003 and the DP card was December 2002.
Does anyone have any further knowledge or understanding regarding the time-barred issue?
0
Comments
-
titusbungle wrote: »
Anyhow, the letter received yesterday listed both decisions and stated a number of reasons which we dispute
-"There are grounds to conclude that you would have bought the policy in any event". Not true!
How can you prove this? What if she wanted the policy at the time?titusbungle wrote: »
-"Sufficient information was provided at the point of sale to allow you to make an informed decision whether or not to add PPI." Definitely not - the sales assistant didn't ask / explain anything
Can you prove this?
Realistically you are talking about he said/she said complaints which usually fail without evidence or another failing being identified.titusbungle wrote: »
All of the above we can object / raise with the Ombudsman, where we are struggling are that they attached an extra two pages.
"In relation to your TopShop card... time-barred... you have six years from the point of sale" plus it also states "in addition you have three years from the date that you knew or ought to have known following "relevant knowledge"."
It then states "In relation to your Dorothy Perkins account.... time-barred.... you have fifteen years from the point of sale"
The TopShop card was September 2003 and the DP card was December 2002.
Does anyone have any further knowledge or understanding regarding the time-barred issue?
If the time bar has been correctly applied then there is nothing you can do, this is a legal status - 6 years from point of sale and 3 years from being reasonably aware of a need to complain (such as them writing you a letter inviting you to complain). The 15 year rule has started cropping up in the Santander paperwork, it is a separate legal issue.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
-"There are grounds to conclude that you would have bought the policy in any event". Not true!
it may or may not be true but that doesnt matter. It is a reasonable guess. This phrasing matches FOS phrasing. it usually gets used when there are no identifiable failings. It is just a statement.-"Sufficient information was provided at the point of sale to allow you to make an informed decision whether or not to add PPI." Definitely not - the sales assistant didn't ask / explain anything
They probably didnt have to when these were bought. Insurance regulation started in Jan 2005 and the requirements before that were very low. That said, they still have to verify you are eligible and it appears they have done this.All of the above we can object / raise with the Ombudsman
You can and the FOS may agree with you. However, nothing you have said suggests anything wrong with the rejection reasons. So, unless you have additional information or evidence, be prepared for the FOS to reject as well.
As described above.Does anyone have any further knowledge or understanding regarding the time-barred issue?I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Why are the time-bar periods different?
"In relation to your TopShop card... time-barred... you have six years from the point of sale" plus it also states "in addition you have three years from the date that you knew or ought to have known following "relevant knowledge"."
It then states "In relation to your Dorothy Perkins account.... time-barred.... you have fifteen years from the point of sale"
The TopShop card was September 2003 and the DP card was December 2002.0 -
They must have evidence that you were told about the possibility of being mis-sold, but only for one of the cards. Did they send a letter perhaps ?0
-
Not that they have stated or that we remember? :-(Moneyineptitude wrote: »They must have evidence that you were told about the possibility of being mis-sold, but only for one of the cards. Did they send a letter perhaps ?0 -
Unfortunately, not remembering such a letter will not mean it was never sent.titusbungle wrote: »Not that they have stated or that we remember? :-(0 -
A letter inviting you to complain (if they can prove it was sent) is sufficient to trigger a time bar
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards