We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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!
PPI Sold to me before 2205
Options
cookie666
Posts: 348 Forumite
Had a letter back from the Ombudsman Service saying that they could not help with PPI claim as it was done before January 2005. (StoreCard)
I've successfully had a claim upheld with another provider for a loan from 1996, so a little confused?
Should I follow it up (can I?) or leave it be?
*2005, not 2205, unless I've got a Tardis.
I've successfully had a claim upheld with another provider for a loan from 1996, so a little confused?
Should I follow it up (can I?) or leave it be?
*2005, not 2205, unless I've got a Tardis.
0
Comments
-
Sounds like, whoever sold you the ppi on the store-card wasn't regulated before 2005 and so don't have to consider your complaint.I've successfully had a claim upheld with another provider for a loan from 1996, so a little confused?
The 1996 loan and ppi was likely provided by a financial institution which was regulated at the time.
Hope that clears the confusion.0 -
Regulation started in January 2005. Some firms (mainly banks) were members of an earlier body (either the ABI or the GISC) and they are treated as having earlier regulation. So, the FOS can consider complaints from an earlier date with those.
If the firm was not a member of an earlier body, then the FOS has no remit to look at the complaint.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 -
Brilliant, thank you very much for helping clear that up, so basically they are dead in the water (Debenhams store card and Burtons)0
-
find out who the underwriters are and claim them0
-
powerwillyno18 wrote: »find out who the underwriters are and claim them
The underwriter holds no liability for a complaint and doesn't change the fact it's a pre-regulation complaint. If it's got to the FOS and they're still not paying out due to it being pre-regulation, it's the end of the roadSam 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 -
Did you complain to Santander that your store cards’ PPI policies were mis-sold? Were your complaints rejected? Did you take your complaint to the FOS?Had a letter back from the Ombudsman Service saying that they could not help with PPI claim as it was done before January 2005. (StoreCard)
I've successfully had a claim upheld with another provider for a loan from 1996, so a little confused?
Should I follow it up (can I?) or leave it be?
Santander is responsible for investigating PPI complaints for Burton & Debenhams store cards The insurers FICL have taken responsibility for all GE cards(including Burton & Debenhams store cards) up to and including 14th January 2005.
See here https://en.clp.partners.axa/claimsuk
“Making a Complaint About the Sale of Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) Taken Out with GE Money
Financial Insurance Company Limited and Financial Assurance Company Limited, the insurers of your PPI policy (each the Insurer) have reached agreement with Santander UK PLC (Santander) regarding an adjusted approach to our handling of mis-selling complaints that results in an enhanced customer journey.
All aspects of mis-selling complaints relating to Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) taken out with GE Money, up to and including 14 January 2005, will now be assessed by Santander on behalf of Financial Insurance Company Limited and Financial Assurance Company Limited. Santander should therefore be the first point of contact for all customer mis-selling complaints. Mis-selling complaints received by Santander or the Insurer since 28 July 2017 will also be assessed on this basis. You should contact Santander directly to register your complaint on the details below, or if you have any questions about existing complaints or the complaints handling process:”
A quick search of recent FOS decisions shows FICL has taken responsibility for the mis- selling of PPI for Burton and Debenhams store cards from 1990s.0 -
Did you complain to Santander that your store cards’ PPI policies were mis-sold? Were your complaints rejected? Did you take your complaint to the FOS?
Santander is responsible for investigating PPI complaints for Burton & Debenhams store cards The insurers FICL have taken responsibility for all GE cards(including Burton & Debenhams store cards) up to and including 14th January 2005.
See here https://en.clp.partners.axa/claimsuk
“Making a Complaint About the Sale of Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) Taken Out with GE Money
Financial Insurance Company Limited and Financial Assurance Company Limited, the insurers of your PPI policy (each the Insurer) have reached agreement with Santander UK PLC (Santander) regarding an adjusted approach to our handling of mis-selling complaints that results in an enhanced customer journey.
All aspects of mis-selling complaints relating to Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) taken out with GE Money, up to and including 14 January 2005, will now be assessed by Santander on behalf of Financial Insurance Company Limited and Financial Assurance Company Limited. Santander should therefore be the first point of contact for all customer mis-selling complaints. Mis-selling complaints received by Santander or the Insurer since 28 July 2017 will also be assessed on this basis. You should contact Santander directly to register your complaint on the details below, or if you have any questions about existing complaints or the complaints handling process:”
A quick search of recent FOS decisions shows FICL has taken responsibility for the mis- selling of PPI for Burton and Debenhams store cards from 1990s.
Did you read the post before copy/pasting this?
The OP complained, was rejected and went to FOS who also rejected itSam 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 -
Not sure where you surmised that from?Did you read the post before copy/pasting this?
The OP complained, was rejected and went to FOS who also rejected it
The OP had a letter from the Ombudsman Service saying that they could not help with the PPI complaint regarding PPI policies sold with a Debenhams and Burton store card as it was done before January 2005 and OP wanted to know whether they should follow it up or leave it be.
As my “copy & paste” shows the insurer FICL has accepted responsibility for mis selling complaints of PPI policies sold with Burton & Debenhams store cards pre-2005.
The OP made no mention of whom they had complained to or why the FOS were writing to them-perhaps they will come back and clarify, perhaps they won’t.
Either way your earlier comment that "the underwriter holds no liability for a complaint and doesn't change the fact it's a pre-regulation complaint " is incorrect for Burton and Debenham PPI mis-selling complaints and the FOS will consider them.
As I stated in my previous post-
A quick search of recent FOS decisions shows FICL has taken responsibility for the mis- selling of PPI for Burton and Debenhams store cards from 1990s.
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=90840
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=176517
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=78904
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=1781510 -
Not sure where you surmised that from?
The OP had a letter from the Ombudsman Service saying that they could not help with the PPI complaint regarding PPI policies sold with a Debenhams and Burton store card as it was done before January 2005 and OP wanted to know whether they should follow it up or leave it be.
As my “copy & paste” shows the insurer FICL has accepted responsibility for mis selling complaints of PPI policies sold with Burton & Debenhams store cards pre-2005.
The OP made no mention of whom they had complained to or why the FOS were writing to them-perhaps they will come back and clarify, perhaps they won’t.
Either way your earlier comment that "the underwriter holds no liability for a complaint and doesn't change the fact it's a pre-regulation complaint " is incorrect for Burton and Debenham PPI mis-selling complaints and the FOS will consider them.
As I stated in my previous post-
A quick search of recent FOS decisions shows FICL has taken responsibility for the mis- selling of PPI for Burton and Debenhams store cards from 1990s.
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=90840
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=176517
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=78904
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=178151
And again you don't understand. The OP has a pre-regulation complaint which the firm has rejected, OP went to FOS and was told it's pre-regulation.
The underwriter did not sell the OP anything, therefore cannot be held responsible for miss-selling.
FICL can reject any complaints from tomorrow if they want to and OP has no come backSam 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 -
The OP doesn't explicitly state that a complaint was sent to anyone, only that FOS was unable to "help".The OP has a pre-regulation complaint which the firm has rejected, OP went to FOS and was told it's pre-regulation.
Until and unless the OP returns to clarify, this fruitless and fractious argument is going nowhere....0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards