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!
Mis-sold DFS PPI
Options
MarkRP
Posts: 3 Newbie
Morning, I'm after some advice if possible.
I found some old paperwork a couple of months ago relating to some furniture bought from DFS in 2002. The paperwork consisted of the credit agreement for a 'buy-now-pay-later' arrangement with GE Capital Bank, via DFS, the original furniture order form and three bank statements from 2003 showing repayments made to GE Capital.
On the 17th February 2002, I ordered a furniture from DFS. I financed the purchase using the DFS buy-now-pay-later-scheme through GE Capital Bank Plc. This process was done in person at the branch. The furniture cost £2567. During the credit application and the subsequent acceptance, I did not request for the finance to be covered by Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) and did not agree to this - this is evidenced by the credit agreement, clearly showing that the PPI was not required as the box is not ticked. Repayments without PPI added were £71.31 per month over 36 months. Despite this, PPI was added to the monthly repayment, which commenced in February 2003. This is evidenced by the bank statements, showing repayments of £80.22 each month. I was not aware that I was paying PPI during the course of the repayment period as I did not request PPI.
I emailed the PPI complaint department at DFS and received a reply through the post a week of so later, dismissing my claim, saying that I was not mis sold PPI as the PPI would have bene fully explained to me at the point of order and that I would have left with documentation relating to the PPI.This was obviously a blanket reply sent by DFS in respect of all claims to deter any spurious claims. This was obviously in no way relevant to my claim as the point raised was that I did not authorise PPI at the point of order.
I then escalated the complaint to the Customer Services Manager and then received another reply by post yesterday, informing me that the claim has been dismissed again because there was no PPI added to the policy - quite clearly incorrect again.
Can someone suggest the next course of action, if any? The agreement was pre-FOS regulation, so I presume the FOS would not take this case on? I believe there is a 6 year limitation on small claims court proceedings, so I have ruled this out at this time too.
I found some old paperwork a couple of months ago relating to some furniture bought from DFS in 2002. The paperwork consisted of the credit agreement for a 'buy-now-pay-later' arrangement with GE Capital Bank, via DFS, the original furniture order form and three bank statements from 2003 showing repayments made to GE Capital.
On the 17th February 2002, I ordered a furniture from DFS. I financed the purchase using the DFS buy-now-pay-later-scheme through GE Capital Bank Plc. This process was done in person at the branch. The furniture cost £2567. During the credit application and the subsequent acceptance, I did not request for the finance to be covered by Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) and did not agree to this - this is evidenced by the credit agreement, clearly showing that the PPI was not required as the box is not ticked. Repayments without PPI added were £71.31 per month over 36 months. Despite this, PPI was added to the monthly repayment, which commenced in February 2003. This is evidenced by the bank statements, showing repayments of £80.22 each month. I was not aware that I was paying PPI during the course of the repayment period as I did not request PPI.
I emailed the PPI complaint department at DFS and received a reply through the post a week of so later, dismissing my claim, saying that I was not mis sold PPI as the PPI would have bene fully explained to me at the point of order and that I would have left with documentation relating to the PPI.This was obviously a blanket reply sent by DFS in respect of all claims to deter any spurious claims. This was obviously in no way relevant to my claim as the point raised was that I did not authorise PPI at the point of order.
I then escalated the complaint to the Customer Services Manager and then received another reply by post yesterday, informing me that the claim has been dismissed again because there was no PPI added to the policy - quite clearly incorrect again.
Can someone suggest the next course of action, if any? The agreement was pre-FOS regulation, so I presume the FOS would not take this case on? I believe there is a 6 year limitation on small claims court proceedings, so I have ruled this out at this time too.
0
Comments
-
You're right that it's pre regulation, so just put it behind you.0
-
All our credit is interest free but I am going to quote you figures including ppi, is X per month affordable?
From the DFS selling script. I still remember it from 19 years ago, recited ten times every day for years.0 -
During the credit application and the subsequent acceptance, I did not request for the finance to be covered by Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) and did not agree to this - this is evidenced by the credit agreement, clearly showing that the PPI was not required as the box is not ticked. Repayments without PPI added were £71.31 per month over 36 months. Despite this, PPI was added to the monthly repayment, which commenced in February 2003. This is evidenced by the bank statements, showing repayments of £80.22 each month.
So 12.5% was added to the expected monthly payments.
Forget about PPI, why on earth didn't you question this in 2003?0 -
On the rejection letter, it will state if they have given you access to the FOS or not.0
-
Dazed_and_confused wrote: »So 12.5% was added to the expected monthly payments.
Forget about PPI, why on earth didn't you question this in 2003?
Because I was a typical teenager!0 -
Stop wasting your time.
Its pre regulation
As above, its pre regulation, move onmake the most of it, we are only here for the weekend.
and we will never, ever return.0 -
It does say that, but I'm not sure if that is a standard response? I'll call them tomorrow.
It is a requirement to state the position on every complaint outcome. However, the actual text will vary depending on the scenario.
If it says you have access to the FOS then you have it. If it says you dont have access to the FOS as it is pre-regulation (or words similar) then that would not have access and the FOS cannot look at it as the firm has not volunteered access for a pre-regulation sale.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards