Related provisions for DISP App 3.3A.4

1 - 5 of 5 items.

Search Term(s)

Filter by Modules

Filter by Documents

Filter by Keywords

Effective Period

Similar To

To access the FCA Handbook Archive choose a date between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2004 (From field only).

Where the firm did not disclose to the complainant in advance of a payment protection contract being entered into (and is not aware that any other person did so at that time): (1) the anticipated profit share plus the commission known at the time of the sale; or (2) the anticipated profit share plus the commission reasonably foreseeable at the time of the sale; or (3) the likely range in which (1) or (2) would fall;the firm should consider whether it can satisfy itself on reasonable
The presumption that failure to disclose commission gave rise to an unfair relationship is rebuttable. Examples of factors which may contribute to its rebuttal include:(1) the CCA lender did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know or foresee the level of commission and anticipated profit share; or(2) the complainant could reasonably be expected to be aware of the level of commission and anticipated profit share (e.g. because they worked in a role in the financial
DISP App 3.1.1GRP
(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