How are we supposed to know the rules?

Gonna-be-debt-free

(Genuine question - not just a rant )

There seem to be (understandably) a lot of rules around how to engage banks in regard to complaints. But how are we supposed to know about them, other than spending hours on forums or sites like this?

For example, I think I was vaguely aware about 5 years ago that there was something called PPI which wasn't quite what it should be, because I wrote to a card provider asking if the "pay protecti" line item which often showed up on my statement was PPI, and if it was could they please cancel it. They cancelled it, but didn't confirm what it was, simply referring to it in the cancellation confirmation letter as "pay protecti" (no, that's not my typo).

I now understand from the bank that I might have in some way "time-barred" myself for only cancelling it at the time and not putting in a complaint about miss-selling at the time.

So genuinely, how are we supposed to know what the "rules" are? I'm not completely financially negligent - I do a full review of my finances once a year and reconcile accounts and stuff once a month, receipts and expense claims once a week - but I don't spend hours keeping up on the latest shenanigans of the banks. I don't watch TV so I don't see adverts there. I work away from home, often abroad, so I don't read UK news papers or typically see posters on bus-stops etc.

I can understand the argument that I should have known more about PPI, but I genuinely think that up until quite recently a lot of us thought it was mostly noise generated by claims management companies, and that eventually the banks would proactively address it by contacting people.

But how are we supposed to know about things like time-barring complaints?

[Deleted User]

Gonna-be-debt-free wrote: »

But how are we supposed to know about things like time-barring complaints?

You don't need to know anything about "the rules" in advance of a complaint. However, if you make a complaint in ignorance of any such regulation it should not be a surprise when the result of the complaint is simply a reference to rules that you may not be aware of. The FCA spent a lot of money making people aware that PPI complaints were coming to an end, but it was entirely up to the potential complainant how much prior research they did.

Sites like this are deliberately set up to inform and educate but, again, it's up to the individual to use them...

Gonna-be-debt-free

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

You don't need to know anything about "the rules" in advance of a complaint. However, if you make a complaint in ignorance of any such regulation it should not be a surprise when the result of the complaint is simply a reference to rules that you may not be aware of. The FCA spent a lot of money making people aware that PPI complaints were coming to an end, but it was entirely up to the potential complainant how much prior research they did.

Sites like this are deliberately set up to inform and educate but, again, it's up to the individual to use them...

I'm just wondering if I'm doing something wrong in terms of financial-hygiene? I can't think of any way that I would have known back in 2015 that I needed to complain there and then.

SonOf

There seem to be (understandably) a lot of rules around how to engage banks in regard to complaints. But how are we supposed to know about them, other than spending hours on forums or sites like this?

There are no rules for consumers. The rules apply to financial firms.

The consumer is free to complain using virtually any sensible method available to them.

For example, I think I was vaguely aware about 5 years ago that there was something called PPI which wasn't quite what it should be, because I wrote to a card provider asking if the "pay protecti" line item which often showed up on my statement was PPI, and if it was could they please cancel it. They cancelled it, but didn't confirm what it was, simply referring to it in the cancellation confirmation letter as "pay protecti" (no, that's not my typo).

I have highlighted two bits in what you have said. You aked them to cancel if it it was PPI. It was and they did. You gave an instruction and they followed it.

There is nothing wrong with having PPI. You can still buy it today. It isnt the product that is at fault.

I now understand from the bank that I might have in some way "time-barred" myself for only cancelling it at the time and not putting in a complaint about miss-selling at the time

That would sound reasonable as you a) knew you had it and b) took action at the time.

So genuinely, how are we supposed to know what the "rules" are?

You dont need to know the rules. However, in all walks of life timebars exist. Financial services actually have more consumer friendly timebars than most other retail or service sectors.

But how are we supposed to know about things like time-barring complaints?

Most genuine complaints are made relatively quickly after the event in question. You don't need to be told that you can complain. If you are of reasonable IQ, you should know that you can complain about whatever you like.

Unfortunately, compensation chasers exist and they generate complaints where no complaints actually exist. For example, did you know that over half of PPI complaints make all sorts of allegations of wrongdoing in the sale of PPI but they never had PPI to begin with. Firms are also required to destroy records over time. So, there needs to be reasonable timebars that maintain consumer protection but also protect firms. Hence you get timebars.

It is without doubt that the banks have paid out far more in compensation then they should have done if it was possible to actually measure genuine complaints and try-it-on/fraudulent complaints.

If you havent complained within 3 years of being reasonably aware of an issue then it likely means you didnt feel it was worth complaining about.

I'm just wondering if I'm doing something wrong in terms of financial-hygiene? I can't think of any way that I would have known back in 2015 that I needed to complain there and then.

The PPI issue started over 15 years ago. 2015 is long into the process.
You wrote to the card provider asking them to cancel it if it was PPI. So, you clearly knew about PPI. And you asked them to cancel it as you felt you didnt need it. If you were unhappy that you had it and didn't think you should have, then you should have complained. You didn't.

Gonna-be-debt-free

Thanks both. So I guess my mistake is not being litigious enough.

I became aware that it was something I was paying that I didn't want, and that people generally thought was a bad thing. I should have done more digging at the time about what the whole PPI thing was about, rather than just becoming aware of it over time.

LABMAN

Gonna-be-debt-free wrote: »

Thanks both. So I guess my mistake is not being litigious enough.

I became aware that it was something I was paying that I didn't want, and that people generally thought was a bad thing. I should have done more digging at the time about what the whole PPI thing was about, rather than just becoming aware of it over time.

You should have been aware it wasn't something you wanted/needed at your first full annual review of your finances after taking it out and dealt with it then.

Gonna-be-debt-free

LABMAN wrote: »

You should have been aware it wasn't something you wanted/needed at your first full annual review of your finances after taking it out and dealt with it then.

At that time I believed I did need it, as I had been told I couldn't have the card without it, and I needed a credit card for expenses for my job.

LABMAN

Gonna-be-debt-free wrote: »

At that time I believed I did need it, as I had been told I couldn't have the card without it, and I needed a credit card for expenses for my job.

Then you could have gone elsewhere for a card that did not have that stipulation...you chose not to. Could you have claimed the CPP as a business expense?

Gonna-be-debt-free

LABMAN wrote: »

Then you could have gone elsewhere for a card that did not have that stipulation...you chose not to. Could you have claimed the CPP as a business expense?

Yeah, but it wasn't an upfront stipulation. It was a phone call at the end of the (weeks long) acceptance process, at which point it felt too late to go elsewhere, and I already had the credit check on my record. Additionally, I was working in the middle-east where, at the time, incoming phone calls like that were charged at about £1 per minute. And applications for cards were done on paper through the post or in person in the bank (so not possible while I was in a different country). So yes, technically I could have gone somewhere else, but it wouldn't have been easy.

Never occurred to me to claim the PPI as a business expense, and not sure I would have been able to, and over time I think I just got used to mentally ignoring the line item to the extent that over time I wasn't particularly clear on what it was for (not entirely sure I fully understood in the first place).

Anyway, enough group therapy for me But thank you. I think I will just be more careful in future and if in doubt, complain at the time.

brettcta

(Genuine question - not just a rant )

There seem to be (understandably) a lot of rules around how physics works in regard to staying on the ground and not floating off into space. But how are we supposed to know about them, other than spending hours at university or sites like this?

foxtrotoscar_2

Gonna-be-debt-free wrote: »

Yeah, but it wasn't an upfront stipulation. It was a phone call at the end of the (weeks long) acceptance process, at which point it felt too late to go elsewhere, and I already had the credit check on my record. Additionally, I was working in the middle-east where, at the time, incoming phone calls like that were charged at about £1 per minute. And applications for cards were done on paper through the post or in person in the bank (so not possible while I was in a different country). So yes, technically I could have gone somewhere else, but it wouldn't have been easy.

Never occurred to me to claim the PPI as a business expense, and not sure I would have been able to, and over time I think I just got used to mentally ignoring the line item to the extent that over time I wasn't particularly clear on what it was for (not entirely sure I fully understood in the first place).

Anyway, enough group therapy for me But thank you. I think I will just be more careful in future and if in doubt, complain at the time.

Can I suggest that your 'full' annual review of your finances could be fuller. I mean that as a constructive point BTW. I'm well aware of the 6 and 3 year thing and it is of no interest and never would apply to me...I'm not sure how you could have reasonably missed it.