Curious Letter from Nemo re PPI complaint

[pmcc_73]

Hi all,

 

In late 2006, my wife and I took out a loan from Nemo for c£23k with an up front PPI policy of around £6k thrown on top for good measure

(I don't have exact figures to hand just now).

 

We sold our property a year or so later and our solicitors paid off, from the proceeds, the loan,

PPI and six months interest (you know, like they do), which astonishingly totalled about £29,500.

 

 

A few things happened next:

• My wife had a breakdown after the close proximity death of both her parents
  
• My own mother died
  
• I presented a claim for my PPI in 2008
  
• My claim was rejected with the usual 6 month Ombudsman notice
  
• The stress of my wife's illness and my own coming to terms with the loss of my Mum meant I never followed it up
  

I later tried to go back to them to follow this up, only to be told that they had presented me with a final response and yadda, yadda, etc.

 

Now, I cannot recall the exact reasoning behind my initial complaint,

but it should be pointed out that I was and still am a Public Sector worker who would not have benefited from such a PPI at all,

i.e. my sickness benefits at work covered a period of illness up to 6 months, fully negating the PPI policy's benefits.

 

So, onto the subject title of the thread:

 

Today I received a letter from Nemo stating that they have been told by the FSA that:

...complaints which have been previously rejected should be reconsidered in light of new guidance they have issued.

Given that your complaint was received prior to this new guidance,

we are now offering you the opportunity to have your complaint reconsidered....etc...

 

Consequently it is possible that you may have suffered financial loss as a result of a potential mis-sale and therefore be entitled to redress.

 

Sounds good, yeah? But...

 

Do any Time Limits Apply?

You have a maximum of 6 months from the date of this letter to inform us that you would like us to reconsider your previous complaint.

 

Again, sounds good, just respond to them, but here's the kicker...

 

If you do ask us to re-open your complaint please note we may reject it without consideration of its merits if your request to reopen it is made more than 6 years after the sale of the PPI policy.

 

We may also reject your complaint without consideration of its merits if your request to reopen it is made more than 3 years after the date you became aware,

or ought to reasonably have become aware, of the grounds for complain - which we are taking as the date of your original complaint.

 

In consideration of the above, Nemo would make this assessment based on the latter of these two dates.

 

In these circumstances we may also object to the Financial Ombudsman Service considering your complaint.

 

So, from the timeline I described above, loan in 2006 and complaint in 2008, Nemo are saying they may reject it without consideration of its merits after 2012 or 2011 respectively.

 

Are they bluffing, and indeed hoping, that I decide not to pursue this further?

[jdene]

That response from them is almost taunting in its tone, we been told we have to reconsider but we will put in measures to make sure we dont need to it seems scandelous, you should send a copy to the FSA and ask thier position on this im sure thier guidance dosent allow for this,

 

jdene

[citizenB]

I think they are trying it on. I will find one of the PPI guys to help.

[dx100uk]

the 3/6yrs does not retrospectively apply

they are taking bowlarks.

 

it only applies to those claims AFTER the ruling

 

dx

[dx100uk]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?380960-PPI-with-The-Money-Group-refused-refund&highlight=PPI+FSA

[pmcc_73]

Thanks for the responses.

 

It was my take on it that the date they have to work on is the date I lodge the claim and not their "delay you for a few years, then re-open it at our convenience" date, as they appear to suggest.

 

Anyway, they have asked me to sign and date an agreement for them to re-open the case (attached to the spiel above) which may imply agreement on my part to abide by their made up nonsense - my question now, therefore, is: should I write them a separate letter instructing them to re-open the case whilst also refuting their right to throw the claim out on their spurious basis, or simply return their form?

 

I'm inclined to go with my own letter with an addendum that I'm sending one to the FSA regarding them misleading me (again).

 

-pmcc

[dx100uk]

yes agreed the latter

they cant impose a retro time limit.

 

dx

[pmcc_73]

Never saw your link dx100uk.

 

Boom, I think is the word currently in vogue.

[pmcc_73]

Spoke to someone from the FCA who seems to be of the opinion that the three-year limitation (or the six) does indeed apply. Forgot to mention to him that the PPI was added to my loan agreement (with interest and all that jazz), which was also secured against my home, ie it was a mortgage.

 

So, is it 12 years, or does the Ombudsman's "one rule apparently fits all" guidance of 6 and 3 apply?

 

Thanks in advance.

[dx100uk]

it cannot be retro applied

 

your limit is 6 years as its not a mortgage agreement [says mortgage]

 

dx

[pmcc_73]

it cannot be retro applied

 

your limit is 6 years as its not a mortgage agreement [says mortgage]

 

dx

 

Mmm, might have to look at the agreement to check on that one. Does it have to state mortgage, I thought it only had to be secured against 'land property', which it was, i.e. a de facto mortgage?