Mbna ppi time bar - fos rejected claim

[spanero]

Hello,

 

I started a PPI claim from MBNA (credit card) PPI was automatically added,

The card started about 1995 (I was about 20) still used today.

 

I have been told by the FOS (via a ppi claim company)

that MBNA has said a time bar applies to my claim as I received statements

and the ppi would have been on them.

Well sure it was every one would have who had PPI.

 

I understand this is fair enough and there will be people saying this is my fault

but I did not even know I had PPI (hence miss sold) and this was my first credit card when I was young

and obviously a lot went on this card to get me by in the early years,

 

 

Also to be honest I never checked every transaction I simply look at the amounts and mentally check the figures

I still do the same today with all my accounts.

I am extremely tied up from 6am until around 8pm working and paying lots of tax... lol

 

I have read about the 6 and 3 rule and also a lot of posts revolving around this matter,

I feel this is a loop hole at which all banks can refuse PPI on maybe 9 out of 10 requests,

so is this PPI coming to an end and shafting the late claimers

who have only heard about PPI reclaiming on the media ?.

 

I feel let down by the FOS at the moment as if PPI is Fraudulently or secretly added is does not matter when it was?

 

I have re submitted/escalated to the FOS stating I was not aware of the PPI until my first phone call to MBNA

within the last 2 years and asked on the phone what is this payment for ?

 

Has anyone else had this issue and had a resolve ?

 

Thankyou

[dx100uk]

well id dump the CMC as it'll lose you +35% of your claim.

 

 

there is no time bar on PPI

 

 

std reply from MBNA to put you off

[spanero]

Ok Here is the update,

 

FOS is still saying that I should have checked my statements and the time bar still stands.

 

Looks like I cant claim any PPI back, so this is a loophole to not pay out PPI.

[dx100uk]

scan up the letters from the fos please

upload

[spanero]

As requested here are the responses from MBNA and FOS,

 

I kind of get that it is a while ago but fraud is fraud, intentionally adding a service not asked for I would thought would need repaying.

 

I would have thought that PPI is not a "Sale" , its a service that is on going so why does that fall into the 6 / 3 year slot.

 

 

thanks for the interest in this case, I was wondering if anyone else had come up against this "timeBar"..

 

 

Thankyou.

FOS Response.PDF

MBNA Response.PDF

[dx100uk]

I sadly feel this is down to the reason your claims company used

for the mis-sale.?

what was the reason for reclaiming.

simply relying upon, you didn't know

has put you in this position.

 

 

not being suitable [how where you employed etc]

might have been a better reason

[spanero]

Hello dx,

 

the forms did state that I have always turned down any insurance and that I was always in full time employment with full pay even when on sick (staff pay), I also have the forms for this.

 

I honestly in about may last year rung up MBNA after looking at a statement asking what the payment was for

and was shocked when the telephone operator said it was payment protection cover,

 

 

I cant remember the discussion after that as I knew I had this card along time (with a good balance on it)

then next time I checked the statement it was changed from payment protection cover to lifestyle protect

(which also brought down the ppi cover from £30 to about £16),

so they were milking me till the last second.

That alone to me is not good..

 

I will see if I can scan the forms.

 

thanks

[dx100uk]

why not sar MBNA?

then prove that phonecall happened.

[spanero]

Hi,

 

ok I will do the letter. I take it MBNA will still stick to the timebar.

[spanero]

Hi,

 

ok I will do the letter. I take it MBNA will still stick to the timebar.

 

Do you think I should write to the senior FOS

and state that I did ring up nearly a year ago when I found out I had PPI,

and also state it was not sold to me because really its a service (ongoing) not a sale

so the 2.8.2 should not apply as its a loop hole,

 

 

why should I look for something on my statements I did not ask for ?

May be stating that this is negligence and purposely added for illegal financial gain.

 

I don't want the original complaint to be barred again because its outside a time limit like 21 days after the FOS last decision.

 

thanks

 

thanks

[dx100uk]

i'd gather everything you can first.

dx