Another Santander/A&L "time bar" question
Keith_R
Posts: 1 Newbie
Hopefully this one is a bit different...
Hi all,
I recently received one of the infamous Santander Time Bar letters in response to a PPI complaint I made about an A&L loan I took out in the early 2000s.
Fair enough (I suppose): but I did receive one of the A&L PPI "heads-up" letters in 2009 (only one - no sign of the second one supposedly sent, which I'm therefore assuming was similar in content) and nowhere in the letter did it make any mention whatsoever that a clock was now ticking. Not so much as a hint.
Q1: isn't a legal institution under an obligation to tell customers about such things?
It strikes me as deeply questionable from a "best advice" point of view to assume knowledge of it, given the complete lack of clarity or openness on the point in the letter.
What the letter did say however, was this (my emphasis):
As far as I'm concerned, that's precisely what I did (let's take it as read that I had good reason not to pursue the matter between then and now, please).
I should add that although I'm not a lawyer or a solicitor, I am a legal professional, being a Data Protection Subject Matter Expert for a very large UK government department, so I'm in reasonably familiar territory: this "telling someone one thing and then doing another" is a pretty significant trigger in DPA terms, and it would be a surprise to me if, in the context of the time bar regs, that a letter explicitly suggesting that I'm under no time constraints whatsoever, would be considered fair and supportive of then rejecting my complaint. So:
Q2: does the failure of the A&L letter to give me any indication of the probability that my claim would be timed out (suggesting in fact that the exact opposite circumstance was apparently the case), give me a reasonable basis on which to approach FOS?
Telling a customer something on which they base a decision, and then penalising the customer for doing so, cannot be the intent of the statute I'd have thought - again, this kind of "spirit of the law" thinking is my bread and butter and it applies beyond the DPA..
Clearly I would not have so readily delayed my claim (personal issues notwithstanding) had I known that the time to make the claim was limited, so in spirit, this feels very like the same kind of misleading, disingenuous behaviour that gave rise to the whole PPI mis-selling debacle in the first place.
This isn't my first rodeo - I'm at around £98k in successful PPI complaints so far (including £1360 for the Plevin aspect of this very complaint with A&L/Santander) - so you can assume that you're not talking to a rookie..!
Grateful for your thoughts, please
Hi all,
I recently received one of the infamous Santander Time Bar letters in response to a PPI complaint I made about an A&L loan I took out in the early 2000s.
Fair enough (I suppose): but I did receive one of the A&L PPI "heads-up" letters in 2009 (only one - no sign of the second one supposedly sent, which I'm therefore assuming was similar in content) and nowhere in the letter did it make any mention whatsoever that a clock was now ticking. Not so much as a hint.
Q1: isn't a legal institution under an obligation to tell customers about such things?
It strikes me as deeply questionable from a "best advice" point of view to assume knowledge of it, given the complete lack of clarity or openness on the point in the letter.
What the letter did say however, was this (my emphasis):
If we have not heard from you by 18 February 2009 we will assume you are satisfied with your policy. Please note that this does not affect your right to raise any concerns at a later date
As far as I'm concerned, that's precisely what I did (let's take it as read that I had good reason not to pursue the matter between then and now, please).
I should add that although I'm not a lawyer or a solicitor, I am a legal professional, being a Data Protection Subject Matter Expert for a very large UK government department, so I'm in reasonably familiar territory: this "telling someone one thing and then doing another" is a pretty significant trigger in DPA terms, and it would be a surprise to me if, in the context of the time bar regs, that a letter explicitly suggesting that I'm under no time constraints whatsoever, would be considered fair and supportive of then rejecting my complaint. So:
Q2: does the failure of the A&L letter to give me any indication of the probability that my claim would be timed out (suggesting in fact that the exact opposite circumstance was apparently the case), give me a reasonable basis on which to approach FOS?
Telling a customer something on which they base a decision, and then penalising the customer for doing so, cannot be the intent of the statute I'd have thought - again, this kind of "spirit of the law" thinking is my bread and butter and it applies beyond the DPA..
Clearly I would not have so readily delayed my claim (personal issues notwithstanding) had I known that the time to make the claim was limited, so in spirit, this feels very like the same kind of misleading, disingenuous behaviour that gave rise to the whole PPI mis-selling debacle in the first place.
This isn't my first rodeo - I'm at around £98k in successful PPI complaints so far (including £1360 for the Plevin aspect of this very complaint with A&L/Santander) - so you can assume that you're not talking to a rookie..!
Grateful for your thoughts, please
0
Comments
-
Q1: isn't a legal institution under an obligation to tell customers about such things?
No. The offer to complain if you feel you were missold is enough.
The timebar rules are from the regulator and do not require the firms to let you know there is a time limit. Just as they do not with legal time limits.Q2: does the failure of the A&L letter to give me any indication of the probability that my claim would be timed out (suggesting in fact that the exact opposite circumstance was apparently the case), give me a reasonable basis on which to approach FOS?
Only the FOS can decide that. The FOS do not just consider rules or law. They have a dose of fairness thrown in. Second guessing would be difficult and there is only one way to find out. The timebar rejection seems fair from a regulatory point of view but the comment about not affecting your right to raise concerns later maybe fairness. Although in context, they were closing the case on 18th Feb 2009 but there were still another 3 years to raise that complaint. So, it is correct.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 -
If we have not heard from you by 18 February 2009 we will assume you are satisfied with your policy. Please note that this does not affect your right to raise any concerns at a later date
Looks pretty clear to me. If they don't hear from you by then, they'll assume you were satisfied. They didn't hear from you by then, even though you were invited to complain.
It doesn't stop you complaining in the future - but it doesn't mean they have to listen to that complaint.
And if you recently received a timebar letter from Santander, then you waited until 9 years after the original letter to complain. Even to me, that's pushing your luck with regards to timebars. The three and six year rule are adequately covered in your case.
You success with any of your past PPI complaints makes no odds to your current position - unless you argued the toss about timebar letters with any of them.Shampoo? No thanks, I'll have real poo...0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards