Related provisions for DISP App 3.1.1B
1 - 11 of 11 items.
2DISP App 3.11.2R and DISP App 3.11.3R apply where:1(1) a complainant has made a complaint to a firm in relation to its sale of a payment protection contract which covered or purported to cover a credit agreement (this includes partial coverage); (2) the complaint was rejected by the firm before 29 August 2017 in that the firm did not offer the complainant the redress they would have been offered had the firm concluded that the complainant would not have bought the payment protection
The firm (or, where applicable, a successor) must as soon as reasonably practicable, and no later than 29 November 2017, send a written communication to the complainant which:(1) informs the complainant that, despite having already made a complaint in relation to the sale of a payment protection contract, they can make a further complaint against the CCA lender in relation to a failure to disclose commission;(2) makes clear the identity of the CCA lender, where this is known to
The obligation to send a written communication does not apply where, in relation to the relevant payment protection contract the firm, or where appropriate the Financial Ombudsman Service, has previously considered, or indicated to the complainant in writing that it will consider, a complaint on the basis of a failure to disclose profit share and/or commission.
(1) 1This appendix sets out how:3(a) 3a firm should handle complaints relating to the sale of a payment protection contract by the firm which express dissatisfaction about the sale, or matters related to the sale, including where there is a rejection of claims on the grounds of ineligibility or exclusion (but not matters unrelated to the sale, such as delays in claims handling); and3(b) 3a firm that is a CCA lender and which has received such a complaint should consider whether
3This appendix provides for a two-step approach to handling complaints. Firms should apply it as follows: (1) a firm which is not a CCA lender should only consider step 1;(2) a CCA lender which did not sell the payment protection contract should only consider step 2, but does not have to do so if it knows the complainant has already made a complaint about a breach or failing in respect of the same contract and the outcome was that the firm which considered that complaint concluded
713If a complaint relates to the sale of a payment protection contract, knowledge by the complainant that there was a problem with the sale of the payment protection contract generally (for example where there has been a rejection of a claim on the grounds of ineligibility or exclusion, or the complainant has received a customer contact letter explaining that they may have been mis-sold) would not in itself ordinarily be sufficient to establish for the purposes of the three-year
(1) 713In addition to DISP 2.8.1R and DISP 2.8.2R, unless one or more of the conditions in (2) below is met, the Ombudsman cannot consider a complaint which:(a) relates to the sale of a payment protection contract that took place on or before 29 August 2017; and(b) expresses dissatisfaction about the sale, or matters related to the sale, including where there is a rejection of claims on the grounds of ineligibility or exclusion (but not matters unrelated to the sale, such as delays
DISP 1.3.3 R requires the firm to put in place appropriate management controls and take reasonable steps to ensure that in handling complaints it identifies and remedies any recurring or systemic problems. If a firm receives complaints about its sales of payment protection contracts it should analyse the root causes of those complaints including, but not limited to, the consideration of:(1) the concerns raised by complainants (both at the time of the sale and subsequently);(2)
Where consideration of the root causes of complaints suggests recurring or systemic problems in the firm's sales practices for payment protection contracts, the firm should, in assessing an individual complaint, consider whether the problems were likely to have contributed (at step 1) 1to a breach or failing or (at step 2) to a failure to disclose commission 1in the individual case, even if those problems were not referred to specifically by the complainant.
The firm should consider all of its sales of payment protection contracts to the complainant in respect of re-financed loans that were rolled up into the loan covered by the payment protection contract that is the subject of the complaint. The firm should consider the cumulative financial impact on the complainant of any previous breaches or failings in those sales or, where relevant, any previous failures to disclose commission1.
DISP App 3 sets out the approach which respondents should use in assessing complaints relating to the sale of payment protection contracts and determining appropriate redress where a complaint is upheld.4 It also requires firms to send a written communication to complainants in certain circumstances (see DISP App 3.11).7
The firm should, for the purposes of redressing the complaint, use the value of £9 per £100 of benefits payable as the monthly price of the alternative regular premium payment protection contract. For example, if the monthly repayment amount in relation to the loan only is to be £200, the price of the alternative regular premium payment protection contract will be £18.