Is Financial Ombudsman decision final?

I had my PPI claim rejected by the finance company I had a car loan with; took the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman who also rejected the claim stating that the company I complained about "wasn't covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service at the time the sale took place".

Is there anything else I can do now or do I chalk it up to experience, file it and walk away? :question: :)

Thanks

Comments

  • If it was pre regulation, that's it.
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 8,631
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Unfortunately for you the only thing you can do is try an expensive court action. If the sale was pre-regulation then the regulator cannot take action.

    Think of this with the speeding car analogy - you drive down a road at 40mph, the limit is 40. The next week the council change the limit to 30mph and send you a speeding ticket - would you pay it or not?

    Regulation started January 2005 for people not part of earlier bodies, any sale before that is not covered
  • dunstonh
    dunstonh Posts: 116,040
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    The FOS can only consider complaints about sales if the company was regulated at the point of sale or a member of an earlier equivalent body.

    Car dealers were not regulated under January 2005. So, the FOS has no remit over the case and cannot consider it.

    They havent rejected your complaint. They haven't even looked at it. They are not allowed to offer any opinion on cases they are have no remit over.
    Is there anything else I can do now or do I chalk it up to experience, file it and walk away?

    Only the courts. However, most of those fail and you end up with a bill. Remember that there is nothing wrong with having PPI. It is the sales process breaching rules where the issue is. In your case, it was before the rules were put in place. You would need a breach of law if you went down the courts route. You probably dont have one.

    In most cases, pre-regulation means game over.
    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.
  • Thanks for the replies, what I expected.

    Filed all the paperwork away and moving on! Ah well such is life! ��
  • redux
    redux Posts: 22,976
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    dunstonh wrote: »
    Remember that there is nothing wrong with having PPI. It is the sales process breaching rules where the issue is. In your case, it was before the rules were put in place. You would need a breach of law if you went down the courts route. You probably dont have one.

    The last time I had PPI, in about 92-94, it was applied to my credit card account without asking me, treated as if it was just standard to have it.

    A couple of years later I discovered that self-employed persons could not claim under certain sections of it, becoming unemployed, or temporarily or permanently unable to work through illness or injury.

    So there was something wrong with having PPI: the bank was charging me for cover two-thirds of which I did not have.
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 8,631
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    redux wrote: »
    The last time I had PPI, in about 92-94, it was applied to my credit card account without asking me, treated as if it was just standard to have it.

    A couple of years later I discovered that self-employed persons could not claim under certain sections of it, becoming unemployed, or temporarily or permanently unable to work through illness or injury.

    So there was something wrong with having PPI: the bank was charging me for cover two-thirds of which I did not have.


    1) No it wasn't - if it was added, you agreed to it by signing or doing so verbally over the phone. Think logically - if it was just added without you being aware you'd notice the charge on your first statement and query it thus the bank would gain a few pounds at best from an illegal act. If enough people started doing it and alerted the regulators the bank would be fined much more than they'd gain



    2) You're misunderstanding Dunstonh's point - PPI is fine, there is nothing wrong with having it, if the policy is suitable. In your case it clearly wasn't because it didn't cover you, but that is an issue with the sale of it, not the policy itself
  • dunstonh
    dunstonh Posts: 116,040
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    redux wrote: »
    The last time I had PPI, in about 92-94, it was applied to my credit card account without asking me, treated as if it was just standard to have it.

    A couple of years later I discovered that self-employed persons could not claim under certain sections of it, becoming unemployed, or temporarily or permanently unable to work through illness or injury.

    So there was something wrong with having PPI: the bank was charging me for cover two-thirds of which I did not have.

    You are mixing things up. You are alleging yours as being unsuitable and shouldn't have been sold to you. That is known as a missale. However, you can still buy PPI today and it can be suitable for people. Just having PPI is not grounds for complaint and getting redress. It has to be missold. Also, technically, the FOS allows coverage that is not 100% as it areas not being covered are not excessive.

    Lots of insurance policies will have exclusions or restrictions added in certain scenarios. So, that itself is not a complaint reason. It is the degree of restriction or exclusion that matters.

    Credit card providers are required to consider pre-regulation complaints.
    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.
  • redux wrote: »
    The last time I had PPI, in about 92-94, it was applied to my credit card account without asking me
    PPI was not just added without the knowledge and permission of the customer. It's hardly surprising that your memory of events 26 years ago is not accurate, but you need to realise that the PPI would have been agreed to by you with a signed agreement. It would also have been on every monthly statement in which your account had an unpaid balance.
    redux wrote: »
    So there was something wrong with having PPI: the bank was charging me for cover two-thirds of which I did not have.
    The point is that you were (mis)sold insurance cover that wasn't suitable for your individual circumstance. That doesn't mean the insurance itself was somehow "wrong".

    To be honest, I think PPI was a very expensive insurance offering very limited cover at best and being totally unsuitable for a significant number of others. There is no doubt that PPI was seen as an easy cash cow for banks and other financial institutions. However, the issue is the manner in which the policies were sold and no one receives a refund simply because they had the insurance .
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards