Originally posted by northernladuk
View Post
Where I think it gets messy is what the rules were prior to the 2004 ruling and how they should have been administered.
In my case I was never informed of any time-bar & the Ins Co maintain as no rules were in place they had no obligation to tell me? my argument is - then how the f*** was I suppose to know!
I did actually complain in 2003 but they said I was time barred? I complained & got complicated BS letters - in short stating it did not matter they did not tell me - they had their own rules etc?.
I complained to FSA at the time but the time bar was upheld!
Its kinda rumbled in the back of my mind that its unfair to just block a complaint when you never informed the potential claimant there were any restrictions? & the FSA have since tightened up all the rules - and dealt with it all very differently.
In a few years the policy will mature so its starting to really annoy!
Apparently someone has successfully challenged in the small claims - won & got 5K.
Just wondered if anyone had any success with the Financial Ombudsman on a time bar challenge pre 2004 rules? i.e. that they were unfair? how can something be imposed on someone when they are unaware of it? Also I really dont think it was clear what the FSA were doing at the time i.e. whether they investigated the complaint properly.
The InsCo FP are refusing to budge, but I believe they've had a few fines to do with it all.

Leave a comment: