Santander and PPI on a Principles store card

[Fred_Funk]

Hi! I've just received a rejection letter from Santander, apropos a Principles store card dating back to the 1990s. I'm adamant the PPI attatched to this was mis-sold on a number of levels and have every intention of pursuing this – as far as court should it prove necessary.

 

In the meantime, with it being some time since I've made any PPI claims I'm a little bit out of the loop and would appreciate any more information on where, exactly, we're at with regard to the Financial Conduct Authority's investigation into undisclosed commissions.

 

Currently, we are unable to consider this aspect of the matter until the FCA has set out its position on undisclosed commissions. We anticipate that this will be in or after April 2016, when we will revisit your complaint and provide a final response when the guidance has been published.

 

I've done a good bit of Googling but can't find anything to suggest the FCA is set to reveal its position any time soon and, this being the case, hoped a fellow CAGer might be able to shed some more light on this - in particular, how the FCA's decision might potentially advantage my claim and when we might expect some kind of announcement from the FCA.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[mightymouse_69]

Here is an FCA statement on the issue, which gives some background: https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statement-on-payment-protection-insurance-ppi (scroll down to the section titled "Plevin")

 

The FCA consultation has concluded. It is now a matter of the FCA digesting the responses and working out where to go from there. It could be quite a while - though no firm time frame has been set.

 

I wouldn't say that this necessarily gives an advantage to any PPI mis-selling complaint. The FCA has proposed that where a complaint is affected by the unfair commission issue, then the consumer should be refunded the difference between a fair level of commission and the commission they actually paid. It will not be a refund of all the premiums - which is what would happen had there been a failure during the sale of the policy.

[Fred_Funk]

Thanks for your input mightymouse_69. What you've said and your link pretty much confirm what I'd already deduced, though I do now have a few supplementary thoughts and questions.

 

[1] Your link suggests the Plevin judgement relied on Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which was inserted by the Consumer Credit Act 2006. Given my PPI policy dates from the 1990s, it seems unlikely this legislation applies to my policy, unless, that is, there's any scope for it to be applied retrospectively. Any thoughts anyone might have on this would be very welcome.

 

[2] Notwithstanding my concerns above, as you point out even where a compliant is affected by the unfair commission issue, this will not trigger a refund of all premiums but, rather, the difference between a fair level of commission and the commission actually paid. Given I'm adamant my policy was mis-sold, for a multitude of reasons, as you suggest, this is not overly helpful to me.

 

At the same time, Santander's correspondence makes it very clear the sale of the policy involved an undisclosed commission and, it seems to me, this could be helpful –*Santander maintain the sale was non-advised, yet concede the shop assistant who sold it may have received a commission for doing so. In light of this and the well-documented concerns about the sale of PPI policies by agents of GE Capital at this time, it seems to me there's a very strong case to be made that my recollection of events – in essence, that it was recommended I should sign up for this policy [by someone who would be rewarded should I do so] – is likely to be more reliable than that of a Santander complaint handler who, plainly, was not there at the time.

 

Again, I'd be interested to her whether my fellow CAGers think there's any merit in this line of attack.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[Jedicris]

Hi Fred_Funk,

 

I expect that one of the experts will respond to you soon but thought I'd put my thoughts out there.

Santander's rejection is probably just their inital fob off and hope you will go way.

As you are sure that it was missold, I think you should respond by countering their reasons for rejecting.

I feel that this is the line that you need to concentrate on.

It may help if you list here, the reasons why it was missold and their reasons for rejecting. This would help the experts and give them a better understanding of the situation.

Sometimes it's better to concentrate on one or two reasons for mis-selling rather than all of them.

I've been involved with a couple of long battles and the one thing I've learnt is not to give in and keep on fighting.

 

Jedicris

[mightymouse_69]

[1] Your link suggests the Plevin judgement relied on Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which was inserted by the Consumer Credit Act 2006. Given my PPI policy dates from the 1990s, it seems unlikely this legislation applies to my policy, unless, that is, there's any scope for it to be applied retrospectively. Any thoughts anyone might have on this would be very welcome.

 

[2]At the same time, Santander's correspondence makes it very clear the sale of the policy involved an undisclosed commission and, it seems to me, this could be helpful –*Santander maintain the sale was non-advised, yet concede the shop assistant who sold it may have received a commission for doing so. In light of this and the well-documented concerns about the sale of PPI policies by agents of GE Capital at this time, it seems to me there's a very strong case to be made that my recollection of events – in essence, that it was recommended I should sign up for this policy [by someone who would be rewarded should I do so] – is likely to be more reliable than that of a Santander complaint handler who, plainly, was not there at the time.

 

1) Section 140A is applied retrospectively in some cases. If your credit agreement was entered into before April 2007, which is when S140A kicked in, the unfair relationship issues would only be relevant if the agreement was still in place in April 2008 - which is when the legislation began to apply regardless of when the agreement was entered into.

 

2) The sale of your policy was probably not an advised sale by the FCA definition. A advised sale would be one where the advisor asks certain questions about your circumstances before recommending a certain policy. Advisors would need to be qualified to do this, since they are giving financial advice. A sale being categorised as "advised" results in a slightly higher bar being set for the business. Where the sale is non advised, they just have to show that information about the policy was given to let you make your own mind up. Where as in an advised sale, they have to show that clear information was given, but also that they then recommended a policy which was suitable for you given your circumstances.

 

The sales advisor saying things like "this policy will be good if you end up out of work" or other sales patter wouldn't be enough for the sale to be considered a recommended sale.

 

I don't think the unfair relationships issue necessarily adds any more weight to your argument. It has been known since the beginning that some staff received a reward for selling PPI. In fact, some businesses made more from the PPI than they did the product they sold it alongside.