PPI complaint dates?

aleigh73

I've raised a PPI case against the Halifax for a mortgage I had with them from 1998 - 2003. They have not up held my complaint.

They state...

---

In relation to the mortgage ending 64-5, the FCA's rules governing this type of complaint confirm that only a PPI policy that protects a credit agreement which falls with-in a specific date range and which is subject to the Consumer Credit Act should be assessed to determine if an unfair relationship existed.
The applicable dates are mortgages sold in the following timeframe:
on or before 31 Oct 2004 and still open on the 6 April 2008 or
linked to another mortgage contract in the above date range.

---

Is this the case, we have some arbitrary dates that affect who can or can't claim PPI??

dunstonh

Is this the case, we have some arbitrary dates that affect who can or can't claim PPI??

It is correct in the context that the response is being given. i.e. it doesnt fall within the dates required for a check under the consumer credit act.

However, you appear to be mixing that up with a PPI complaint review. Your complaint has been assessed and was rejected (as most MPPI complaints are). The bit you quote only relates to rejected complaints and its saying (correctly) yours doesn't qualify for an additional check under the consumer credit act (this is because s140a was amended under the consumer credit act 2006 to apply from 2008. You stopped paying 5 years earlier)

[Deleted User]

aleigh73 wrote: »

Is this the case, we have some arbitrary dates that affect who can or can't claim PPI??

The section you quote is referencing the Plevin Ruling which only applies to rejected PPI complaints. The dates are hardly arbitrary as they apply due to the Consumer Credit Act.

If you read the rest of your rejection letter, the reasons your PPI complaint was rejected will be fully itemised; but it will be nothing to do with the dates you have quoted.

aleigh73

Yes, they also stated that...

i. I had insufficient savings to cover payments.
ii. Not enough evidence that I had employee benefits that meant I had didn't have need for the policy.
iii. It's more than likely that the optional nature of the policy was explained to you verbally.

Re. point i, I estimated how much savings I would have had (2-3 months wages), could've been more, it's too long ago to recollect accurately.
Re. point ii, I did have critical illness cover at the time but will not be able to prove this now.
Re. point iii, I do not remember ever being told that the PPI was an option, they have chosen to ignore my recollection.

During the actual mortgage term covered, I was made redundant, received a healthy payout and got another job. I did not claim from the mis-sold policy.

Onto the ombudsman I guess.

(it was also an endowment mortgage, I guess that's another issue)

antrobus

aleigh73 wrote: »

Yes, they also stated that...

i. I had insufficient savings to cover payments.
ii. Not enough evidence that I had employee benefits that meant I had didn't have need for the policy.
iii. It's more than likely that the optional nature of the policy was explained to you verbally.

Re. point i, I estimated how much savings I would have had (2-3 months wages), could've been more, it's too long ago to recollect accurately....

Halifax appear to be correct. You had insufficient savings.

aleigh73 wrote: »

...
Re. point ii, I did have critical illness cover at the time but will not be able to prove this now....

Halifax appear to be correct. You had no employee benefits that meant you had no need for the policy. Even if you did have a critical illness policy, that would only cover a, err, critical illness. It would not have covered loss of employment, a non critical illness, accident, whatever; things which are much more likely to happen.

aleigh73 wrote: »

...
Re. point iii, I do not remember ever being told that the PPI was an option, they have chosen to ignore my recollection.,,

Presumably the policy was sold in 1998, or twenty years ago. The fact that you don't remember is understandable.

aleigh73 wrote: »

...
During the actual mortgage term covered, I was made redundant, received a healthy payout and got another job. I did not claim from the mis-sold policy.,,,

Of course not. You got another job. Had you failed to do so you might have been grateful that you had MPPI.

aleigh73 wrote: »

...
Onto the ombudsman I guess.

Well yes, that is your right. But based on what you've said, I can't see how the policy was mis-sold.

dunstonh

i. I had insufficient savings to cover payments.
ii. Not enough evidence that I had employee benefits that meant I had didn't have need for the policy.
iii. It's more than likely that the optional nature of the policy was explained to you verbally.

Re. point i, I estimated how much savings I would have had (2-3 months wages), could've been more, it's too long ago to recollect accurately.
Re. point ii, I did have critical illness cover at the time but will not be able to prove this now.
Re. point iii, I do not remember ever being told that the PPI was an option, they have chosen to ignore my recollection.

i - 2-3 months wage is tiny and does confirm you had a financial need for the policy. 12-24 months is more like the area you need.

ii - means nothing to suggest any significant overlap. So, a financial need exists.

iii - means no evidence found to support any allegation that it was not optional. Your recollection is irrelevant as every fraudulent/try-it-on complaint says the same. I recall you stealing £20 from my wallet. So, you must pay it. That is why there is no strength placed on what you say you recall. Plus, people dont remember what was said days or weeks ago. let alone decades.

Onto the ombudsman I guess.

Be prepared. The reasons for the rejection do seem fair and valid and the FOS reject most MPPI complaints. This doesnt mean you wont succeed but based purely on what you have written, the rejection seems fair.