Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements

Policy Statement

PS19/2**

January 2019

Previously rejected PPI complaints and

further mailing requirements – Feedback on

CP18/33 and final rules and guidance

PS19/2

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

This relates to Contents

1 Summary 3

2 Feedback on proposed requirements and

cost benet analysis 9

Annex 1

Compatibility statement 16

Annex 2

List of non-condential respondents 18

Annex 3

Abbreviations used in this paper 19

Appendix 1

Made rules and non-Handbook guidance (legal instrument)

Consultation Paper 18/33

which is available on our website at

www.fca.org.uk/publications

Please send any comments or queries to:

Julian Watts

Financial Conduct Authority

12 Endeavour Square

London E20 1JN

Telephone:

020 7066 1046

Email:

cp18-33@fca.org.uk

How to navigate this document

returns you to the contents list

takes you to helpful abbreviations

takes you to the previous page

takes you to the next page

prints document

email and share document

PS19/2

Chapter 1

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

1 Summary

Introduction

1.1 In Consultation Paper CP18/33, we proposed new rules requiring firms to write to

certain previously rejected payment protection insurance (PPI) complainants to tell

them they can make a new complaint. We also set out proposed guidance on the

proposed mailing requirements, and on our existing mailing requirement.

1.2 In this policy statement, we summarise and respond to the feedback we received. We

have carefully considered that feedback, but it has not substantively changed our view

of what we proposed, and we publish largely unchanged final rules and guidance here.

Our view is that these:

• help to ensure fair and consistent outcomes for relevant PPI complainants

• support our PPI consumer communications campaign

• support our overall aim of bringing the PPI issue to an orderly conclusion in a way

that secures appropriate protection for consumers and enhances the integrity of

the UK nancial system

Background

1.3 In CP18/18, we explained that there was some uncertainty about whether firms, when

assessing complaints about regular premium PPI, should consider the non-disclosure

of commission at both the point of sale and subsequently. To resolve this uncertainty,

we proposed guidance which detailed how firms should handle complaints about

regular premium PPI in light of recurring non-disclosure(s) of the existence of, or level

of, commission and/or profit share (‘RND’).

1.4 Following that consultation, in CP18/33 (Appendix 1) we published final guidance. This

ensures that firms don’t cause harm by rejecting PPI complaints without considering

RND. Among other things, the guidance explains that it may often be reasonable

for firms handling PPI complaints involving RND to draw from our existing rules and

guidance on handling PPI complaints in light of Plevin.

1.5 We had noted in CP18/18 that if a firm had not considered RND when it rejected a

previous regular premium PPI complaint, the consumer can make a new complaint. The

firm would have to treat this complaint as new and assess it in relation to RND, if it is in

scope of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (‘s140A’).

1.6 In CP18/33, we considered the position and potential communication needs of these

previous rejected complainants, in light of the responses to CP18/18 and our final

guidance. We concluded that:

1 The Supreme Court judgment handed down in November 2014: Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Limited [2014] UKSC 61. The

judgment related to non-disclosure of high commission at the point of sale of a PPI policy. See www.fca.org.uk/publication/policy/

ps17-03.pdf

PS19/2

Chapter 1

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

• These consumers may have disengaged from the PPI issue, and be desensitised to

our campaign’s messaging and prompts to action. This is because they previously

complained about mis-selling but were rejected. They were then either not

included in our Plevin mailing requirement in DISP App3.11

, or were included and

responded to it but were again rejected.

• If these consumers were to re-engage with the PPI issue and our campaign and

make a new complaint before the deadline, then some, and perhaps many, would be

upheld and redressed in light of RND (or in some cases Plevin).

• There was a limit to how much RND-specic messaging we could include in our

campaign, given RND’s relative complexity.

• There was a clear risk that previously rejected complainants might miss out on the

opportunity to seek redress, and potentially suer harm as a result.

• This was just as true of those who could make a new complaint in light of Plevin but

were not caught by our previous mailing requirement, as for those who could make

a new complaint in light of RND.

1.7 Therefore, we consulted on new rules (see CP18/33 Appendix 2) that would require:

• Lenders to write to specic regular premium PPI Plevin complainants whose

complaints they previously rejected on the grounds that they did not involve an

unfair credit relationship or were out of jurisdiction.

These letters should tell these

consumers that they can make a new complaint in light of RND, and remind them of

our 29 August 2019 deadline for complaining.

• Sellers (including brokers) to write to specic regular and single premium PPI mis-

selling complainants whom they previously rejected as out of jurisdiction. These

complainants were not caught by our previous Plevin mailing rule and so were not

written to. These letters should tell these consumers that they can make a new

complaint to the lender about non-disclosure of commission, either in light of RND

or Plevin (depending on the circumstances), and remind them of the deadline.

1.8 We estimated that 70,000 to 150,000 consumers would need to be sent letters. We

set out in the proposed rules the main information the letters should convey.

1.9 We also said that, given the clarity our final guidance on RND had now provided, firms

should promptly mail a further 150,000 previously rejected complainants under our

existing Plevin mailing rule (DISP App 3.11.2R).

1.10 To help feedback, we set out more detail on which cases we had in mind for the

proposed new mailings, and further Plevin mailing, in a series of boxes, and asked if

readers agreed with our descriptions.

Who this aects

1.11 The final mailing requirements and guidance will affect firms that sold regular premium

or single premium PPI, or provided credit agreements covered by these types of PPI.

2 DISP App 3.11 requires firms that sold PPI to write (by 29 November 2017) to those previous mis-selling complainants who were

rejected on the merits as not mis-sold, but who are eligible to complain again in light of Plevin, to tell them this and remind them of our

deadline.

3 That is, outside of the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service and so outside of our DISP complaint handling rules (see DISP

3.1.2R).

PS19/2

Chapter 1

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

Is this of interest to consumers?

1.12 The final mailing requirements and guidance will be of interest to:

• Consumers who were sold PPI, or may have been. It particularly aects consumers

who were sold regular premium PPI, including where it covered restricted credit.

This includes home shopping and catalogue accounts, store cards, or loans taken

in-store to buy specic goods. This is the case no matter how long ago it was sold,

for example, before 6 April 2007.

• Consumer organisations and claims management companies (CMCs), or other

paid advocates, who make complaints about PPI on behalf of consumers or

otherwise help them.

Our PPI website gives more details about the 29 August 2019 deadline for complaining

about PPI and about how to complain.

What we are changing

1.13 The rules which set out our final mailing requirements and the accompanying guidance

are set out in Appendix 1 and will apply from 30 January 2019. Firms must complete the

mailings required by these rules and guidance as soon as reasonably practicable, and at

the latest by 29 April 2019.

The outcome we are seeking

1.14 We want the mailings to help recipients consider whether they want to make a new

complaint in light of RND or Plevin before the 29 August 2019 deadline.

Measuring success

1.15 We will assess how firms have complied with these new mailing requirements as part of

our ongoing supervision of the way they treat PPI complaints.

Summary of main feedback

1.16 We received 7 responses from a range of stakeholders, including trade bodies, firms

and consumer bodies (see Annex 2). The main feedback was as follows:

• Most responses agreed that our rationale for the proposed mailings was

reasonable, given the view of RND set out in our nal guidance. But some of these

responses reiterated that they did not agree with that view of RND.

• One response from a consumer body disagreed. It argued that we should instead

require rms to proactively reassess the relevant cases, as this would give redress

to all aected consumers without them needing to complain again, and also be

more ecient.

• No responses disagreed with our descriptions in the boxes of the criteria for cases

to be included in the mailings.

4 Restricted credit is defined in our Handbook as: a loan for which, as a result of an existing arrangement between a supplier and a

firm, the customer’s application to the firm is submitted through the supplier and the terms of the loan require that it be paid to the

supplier for goods or services supplied to the customer, not including loans secured by a charge over land or loans or payments by

plastic card (other than a store card).

PS19/2

Chapter 1

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

Our response to main feedback

1.17 We have carefully considered this feedback (see also 2.12-2.13 and our response).

1.18 Most of the past complaints caught by the proposed mailing requirements were

mis-selling complaints which had not raised the issue of undisclosed commission. They

were rejected by firms either before the Supreme Court decision in Plevin or before we

published our final Plevin complaint rules and guidance in March 2017. Our insurance

conduct of business rules did not (and do not) generally require commission disclosure

(either at point of sale or after).

So, in any individual case, the non-disclosure of high

commission did not breach our rules and is unlikely in itself to have been a breach of

our Principles. Therefore, we do not consider the firm’s failure to have assessed

non-disclosure of commission, when previously assessing such an earlier PPI

mis-selling complaint, to have been unfair complaint handling. We thus consider that

it would be retrospective and inappropriate for us to require the firm to proactively

reopen a previously rejected PPI mis-selling complaint and reassess it now for

undisclosed commission. (We expressed this view previously in PS17/3 pages 36-39.)

However, it is not retrospective for us to require the firm to tell that consumer that they

can make a new complaint now about undisclosed commission (not mis-selling) and we

think it is appropriate and proportionate for us to do so.

1.19 There is a much smaller number of cases where a consumer did previously complain

about the non-disclosure of commission on their PPI policy, or the firm in any case

considered the non-disclosure at point of sale in light of Plevin, but the firm did not

uphold the complaint. These decisions to reject were made before we published our

proposed guidance on RND in July 2018. Again, therefore, we consider that it would

be retrospective and inappropriate for us to require the firm to proactively reopen

that previously rejected PPI commission complaint and reassess it for RND under our

new guidance. However, it is not retrospective for us to require the firm to tell that

consumer that they can make a new complaint, now about RND (not Plevin), and we

think it is appropriate and proportionate for us to do so.

1.20 We consider it reasonable for us to expect the recipients of the letters to make a new

complaint in response, if they wish to. We do not consider that this is too onerous

for them, and it is consistent with our overall complaints-led approach to addressing

potential harm from PPI.

1.21 The letters will be a good supplement to our campaign and be likely to resonate

with the recipients about their particular circumstances, helping them to re-engage

with the PPI issue and our campaign’s messaging. This is consistent with our wider

campaign objectives of getting consumers to make an informed and timely decision

about their own position and whether to complain.

1.22 Overall, therefore, we still consider that requiring the mailings is appropriate, and

we publish largely unchanged final rules and guidance in Appendix 1. The only small

change we have made, in response to other feedback, makes it clearer that lenders

can exclude cases where there was no RND (or non-disclosure at point of sale) at a

time falling within the Ombudsman Service jurisdiction, and hence no loss that needs

redressing (2.14 below).

5 Since April 2014, the FCA’s new consumer credit rules (CONC 4.5) do provide for pre-contract commission disclosure by credit

brokers for contracts entered into on or after 1 April 2014.

PS19/2

Chapter 1

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

Equality and diversity considerations and our response

1.23 We have a public sector equality duty, and have carefully considered equality and

diversity implications throughout our PPI work. In CP18/18, we said that:

• We did not consider that our proposed RND guidance would adversely or

disproportionately aect any of the groups with protected characteristics. These

are: age, disability, sex, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race,

religion or belief, sexual orientation and gender reassignment.

• We recognised that some of the customer groups aected by our proposed RND

guidance have below average incomes, and may have lower nancial condence

and capability. This may make them less likely to complain.

1.24 In CP18/33, we considered the feedback we had received about the position of RND-

affected consumers who may have lower financial confidence and capability. This

feedback contributed to our decision to propose requirements on firms to mail

relevant previously rejected complainants. We asked:

Q5: What are your views of the equality and diversity

implications of our proposed mailing requirements? Are

there additional steps we could take in respect of relevant

aected consumers?

1.25 One response, from industry, said that the measures we had already taken to ensure

PPI complaints can be raised easily through different channels, and to partner

with third sector organisations, would ensure that letter recipients would not be

disadvantaged or excluded, whatever their level of confidence and capability.

1.26 However, another response, from a consumer body, said that because our

proposed mailing approach required recipients to re-complain, it was likely to have a

disproportionate impact on the vulnerable consumers we had identified and on groups

with protected characteristics. The response felt these customers would be better

protected from harm if we required firms to reassess their cases proactively.

1.27 We have carefully considered this feedback. It needs to be seen in the context of our

careful consideration of equality and diversity implications throughout our PPI work.

We have put extensive and appropriate measures in place to mitigate the potential

adverse impact we identified on groups with certain protected characteristics

or with

lower financial confidence and capability, as set out in our Equality Impact Assessment

(EIA) in PS17/3 (March 2017) and our more recent update on progress.

1.28 We consider that the letters that these consumers, like others, will receive will provide

them with effective specific prompts, and help to re-engage them. The letters will spell

out clearly to these consumers, as to others, the various ways in which they can make

a complaint in response to any prompt effected by the letters. In particular, as previous

complainants, recipients will not in general need to search for, or provide, any additional

documentation about themselves or their PPI policy. So, making the new complaint

will be very simple for them. This should be particularly helpful for recipients with lower

financial confidence and capability or who might otherwise have a lower propensity to

complain or who otherwise belong to one of the groups identified in our previous EIA.

6 Namely: older people (particularly those aged over 65 and even more so for those over 75); women; Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic

(BAME) groups (particularly those for whom English is not their first language); disabled consumers, with mental health problems,

learning disabilities, cognitive and/ or sensory impairments. We also identified a need to ensure that the campaign engages people

who care for older or disabled people.

PS19/2

Chapter 1

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

1.29 However, as we did previously, we will agree with stakeholders a standard letter

for firms to use. This will be in a clear and jargon free template text, written in plain

English. This will help to make the letter as easy to understand as possible for all

consumers. We will ensure that the text and template is developed with and reviewed

by communications professionals.

1.30 We will pay particular attention to ensuring that firms provide clear signposting for

further help in the letters. The letters will contain not only information about the firm’s

complaint handling arrangements, but also a link to our own PPI website and a number

for our PPI contact centre, which can provide further information, and reassurance to

consumers who need it that the letters they have received from firms are genuine and

not scams. Our PPI contact centre can also direct consumers who need additional

assistance to the relevant firm, or to the Citizens Advice Bureau which has partnered

with us.

1.31 We will also pursue opportunities to reach and engage relevant consumer audiences in

our future public relations activity. Such messaging would potentially help to support

their interest and confidence in the letters they receive.

1.32 The mailing rules do allow for firms to choose to reassess previously rejected

complaints, and redress the consumer directly, instead of mailing them to invite a

new complaint. Some firms have indicated they may do this, and this approach should

particularly help any consumers with low financial confidence and capability, including

where they belong to one of the groups identified in our previous EIA.

Next steps

1.33 Firms should prepare and send the mailings to all the previous complainants specified

in our final requirements as soon as reasonably practicable, and by 29 April 2019 at the

latest.

1.34 We will shortly begin discussions with stakeholders with a view to agreeing a standard

core letter text for firms to use in their mailings.

1.35 As part of our supervisory work, we will discuss with firms their approach to these

new mailings, and to the supplementary mailings we expect some to make under our

existing mailing rule.

PS19/2

Chapter 2

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

2 Feedback on proposed requirements and

cost benefit analysis

2.1 This chapter sets out in more detail what we had proposed, the feedback to our

proposals, and our response.

What we had proposed

2 First, we estimated that there are around 10,000 previous Plevin complainants who

were rejected by the lender but who can make a new complaint in light of RND. Some

were rejected on the merits because the level of commission at point of sale that was

not disclosed did not create an unfair credit relationship. Others were rejected as out of

jurisdiction, usually because they involved restricted credit where the point of sale was

before 6 April 2007. We said these previous Plevin complainants could now make a new

complaint in light of RND. This is either because there was RND of commission levels

that were higher than at the point of sale, or because there was RND at a date (eg after

6 April 2007) that would bring the new complaint into jurisdiction.

We set out more

detail on which cases we had in mind in Box 2 in Annex 4 of CP18/33.

2.3 Second, we estimated that between 50,000 and 120,000 regular premium PPI

complaints were previously rejected by PPI sellers as out of jurisdiction for the

purposes of mis-selling because of the date of sale.

As a result, these complaints were

not caught by our current Plevin mailing requirement and were not written to. In any

case, they could not make a Plevin complaint that would be in jurisdiction. However,

we said these consumers can make a new complaint because there was RND at a date

that would bring the new complaint into jurisdiction. We set out more detail on which

cases we had in mind in Box 3 in Annex 4 of CP18/33.

2.4 Third, we estimated that there were an additional 10,000 to 20,000 previous PPI mis-

selling complaints that had been rejected as out of jurisdiction, and not caught by our

current Plevin mailing requirement, but where the consumer can make a new complaint

about Plevin that would be in jurisdiction. We set out more detail on which cases we

had in mind in Box 4 in Annex 4 of CP18/33. We said some may involve single premium

PPI. Most are likely to have occurred where the seller was a broker.

2.5 We considered the position and potential communication needs of these 70,000 to

150,000 previous complainants, including in light of the responses to CP18/18 and

our final RND guidance. For the reasons explained in paragraph 1.6 of Chapter 1, we

proposed the new mailing requirements summarised in paragraph 1.7.

2.6 However, we proposed to exclude from the mailing those cases where sending a letter

would be of no benefit to the recipient, including where:

• The rm is the lender and knows the consumer would not be able to make a

complaint in response, in light of RND or Plevin, that would be in jurisdiction.

7 This would typically mean RND on or after 6 April 2007 for restricted credit, but could mean RND on or after 1 December 2001 for

some non-restricted credit.

8 This would typically mean the PPI sale was before 14 January 2005, but could mean before 1 December 2001 for some firms.

PS19/2

Chapter 2

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

• The consumer had already, by 29 April 2019, been oered or paid redress for

mis-sold PPI, or for an unfair relationship arising from a failure to disclose high

commission.

• The lender has already, in its assessment of a mis-selling or Plevin complaint,

considered RND but did not oer redress on the basis that an unfair credit

relationship had arisen.

• The lender, or the Ombudsman Service, has indicated to the complainant in writing

that it will consider or reconsider the PPI complaint.

2.7 We set out in the proposed rules the main information we would require the letters to

give, including:

• explaining that the recipient can make a further complaint, about non-disclosure of

commission (at point of sale or later)

• referring to the deadline for making PPI complaints and to the identity of the lender

(where the seller knows or can reasonably identify this)

• providing information about the rm’s complaint handling arrangements (where the

rm is the lender)

• referring to the information about making a further complaint that is available on

the FCA’s PPI website or through the FCA’s PPI contact centre

2.8 The estimated additional 70,000 to 150,000 letters would be equivalent to between

7% and 13% of the 1.3m letters sent in the previous Plevin mailing. We estimated that

the administrative costs to firms of sending the new mailings would be around £25 per

letter and between £1.75m and £3.75m in aggregate (compared to the £14, and £18m,

which the Plevin mailing cost).

2.9 We also estimated that there are at least another 150,000 previously rejected

complainants who should now be mailed promptly by firms under our existing Plevin

mailing rule in DISP App 3.11.2R, given the clarity our final guidance on RND provides.

That rule requires the PPI seller to write to previous mis-selling complainants it

rejected on the merits as not mis-sold. However, some firms that previously rejected

some restricted credit complaints on their merits as not mis-sold did not subsequently

mail them all about Plevin. These firms thought that there was no point writing about

Plevin to these particular previous complainants, as they were sold the PPI before

6 April 2007, putting any Plevin complaint out of jurisdiction. But, in light of our final

guidance on RND, there would be a point in writing to those cases where there was

RND on or after 6 April 2007. This is because a complaint made in response, considered

in light of RND under our guidance, would be in jurisdiction (see Box 1 in Annex 4 of

CP18/33).

2.10 In our cost benefit analysis (CBA) of the proposed mailing requirements and guidance

• We estimated that the likely aggregate redress resulting would be more than the

estimated administrative costs by at least two- or three-fold and probably more,

making the proposed mailing requirements proportionate.

• We said that relative to the current situation, this would mean an increase in

aggregate future PPI complaints and redress to consumers, and an increase in

administrative costs to rms. These dynamics of costs and benets were set out in

the table on p40 of CP18/33 (see also our response under 2.13 below).

9 The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) requires us to publish a cost benefit analysis (CBA) of proposed rules.

Specifically, section 138I requires us to publish an analysis of the costs together with an analysis of the benefits that proposed rules

will bring. It also requires us to include estimates of those costs.

PS19/2

Chapter 2

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

• We concluded that overall, these dynamics gave us a reasonable basis for expecting

that our proposals would deliver a net benet for consumers, compared to the

current situation. But we couldn’t guarantee this conclusion given the uncertainties

involved.

2.11 We asked:

Q1: Do you agree with our assessment of the rationale for the

proposed mailing requirements?

Q2: Do you agree with our description of the kinds of previously

rejected complaints that would potentially fall within the

proposed mailings?

Q3: Do you agree with our assessment of the scale,

proportionality and feasibility of the proposed mailings?

Q6: Do you agree with our assessment of the costs and benets

of the proposed mailing requirements?

Feedback on what we had proposed

Rationale and cost benet analysis

2.12 As noted in Chapter 1, most responses agreed that our rationale for the proposed

mailings (Q1) was reasonable, given the view of RND that we had set out in our final

guidance. But some of these responses reiterated that they did not agree with that

view of RND. However, these responses did not comment on our CBA (Q6).

2.13 One response from a consumer body disagreed with our rationale for the mailing and

our CBA. Its argument was that:

• the previous Plevin mailing prompted only 40% of recipients to complain

• many recipients of the proposed new mailings would also probably not make a new

complaint, especially given that in some cases this would be their 3rd complaint

• so, our approach would harm those who don’t respond, but we had not assessed

that harm, in our CBA or elsewhere

• we should instead require rms to proactively reassess the relevant cases, as this

would ensure all aected consumers were redressed where needed

• we had not assessed this alternative’s potentially greater eectiveness and

eciency in our CBA, which had also placed no value on the time of the consumer,

who on our approach would have to make a new complaint to be reconsidered

PS19/2

Chapter 2

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

Our response

We regard the 40% response to the previous Plevin mailing as positive,

given our experience of previous 'non-PPI' contact exercises and the

various factors that tend to inuence the response. These include

whether the sale was recent, the average potential redress gure, and

whether the relationship between rm and consumer had already

ended.

We regard the informed decision by a recipient not to complain in

response to a clear informative Plevin letter as a valid outcome from

that mailing. It is a reasonable consequence of consumers having to

bear a reasonable degree of responsibility for their actions. So we do

not regard a non-response as implying harm.

This aligns with our communication campaign aims and success

measures more generally. We see a consumer who makes an informed

decision not to complain, based on their understanding of the issues

following exposure to our campaign, as an equally valid outcome of our

campaign as someone who does decide to complain.

So we regard the previous Plevin mailing as having met our aims for

it. We condently anticipate that the similar approach in the further

mailings we have proposed will be similarly successful. Only a very small

minority of recipients would be complaining for a third time.

In terms of CBA, we accept that our approach will lead to less aggregate

redress than the alternative of rms proactively reassessing relevant

previous cases. We also accept that this alternative would involve

even less time and eort for consumers. However, these cost-benet

considerations do not alter our view, set out in Chapter 1, that it would

not be appropriate for us to require rms to conduct such proactive

reviews and direct redress payments to these previously rejected

complainants.

Overall, therefore, for the reasons set out here and in Chapter 1,

we still consider that our mailing requirements are fair, appropriate

and proportionate, and that our CBA (see Table below) remains an

accurate assessment of the net benefit to consumers that will likely

result.

10 Being those few among the estimated 10,000 cases described in 2.2 above who had made both a previously rejected mis-selling

complaint, and a separate previously rejected Plevin complaint.

PS19/2

Chapter 2

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

Summary table of costs and benets of our nal mailing requirements and guidance

Firms Consumers

Costs Increased redress payments

Increased administrative costs of

complaint handling

Benets Increased redress receipts

Saved time/eort in making PPI

complaints

Categories of complaints

2.14 Concerning the kinds of previously rejected complaints that would potentially fall within

the proposed mailings (Q2):

• No responses disagreed with our descriptions, in the 4 boxes, of the criteria for

relevant complaints to be included in the mailings.

• Some responses said that we should set out more clearly and explicitly (at draft

DISP App 3.11.6R) our apparent intention to exclude restricted credit cases where

the lending rm knows that there was no RND after 6 April 2007.

• Some responses said that we should exclude older complaints rejected before a

certain date - for example before 1 December 2010, when our original rules and

guidance concerning PPI complaint handling (DISP App 3) came into force.

PS19/2

Chapter 2

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

Our response

We have amended the exclusion rule to make it clear that a lender

does not need to mail a consumer if they know that there was no

point of sale or later non-disclosure of commission that fell within

the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman Service. So, for example, in a

restricted credit context there is generally no need to mail where

the lender knows there was no RND on or after 6 April 2007. We

consider this to be fair, proportionate and appropriate, because

those cases would involve no loss after 6 April 2007 that needed

to be redressed.

We have now added the four boxes and their text, substantively

unchanged, as non-Handbook guidance at Appendix 1. Boxes 2, 3

and 4 are guidance on the new mailing rules, and Box 1 is guidance

on the existing mailing rule.

The existing Plevin mailing rule did not exclude any older cases

on the basis of when they were rejected. Some firms did ask us

to do that, because of their concerns about potential records

gaps for older complaints. But our view was that such potential

practical challenges were not reasons to exclude such previous

complainants from the mailing, as they could still have made

a new complaint. We take the same view now for the new

mailing requirements. We also note that most PPI complaints to

firms were made after 1 December 2010, so most cases to be

included in the new mailings will be for cases rejected after that

date.

Proportionality and feasibility

2.15 We did not receive feedback disagreeing with our assessment of the scale,

proportionality and feasibility of the proposed mailings (Q3). But some responses said

that completing them within the proposed 3 months would be a challenge for some

firms. Also, responses to the mailings might well coincide with a rise in the volume of

PPI complaints generally as the deadline approaches, which might stress some firms’

complaint handling capacity.

Our response

These responses did not explain or give examples of why some

firms might find 3 months too short a period to prepare and

send their mailings. However, we accept that the requirements

may create some operational or financial pressures for some

firms, and particularly some smaller ones. If firms do find

themselves in difficulty, they can discuss with their usual

supervisory contacts potential methods within the regulatory

framework to manage these pressures.

PS19/2

Chapter 2

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

The treatment of brokers

2.16 In CP18/33 we noted that non-lending broker firms might not necessarily be able

to identify from their own records whether the potential letter recipient would be

able to make a new complaint to the lender that would be in jurisdiction. We had

therefore designed the proposed requirement so that brokers mail all the mis-selling

complainants they had previously rejected as out of jurisdiction, even though some

complaints about undisclosed commission made in response will be rejected by the

lender as out of jurisdiction.

2.17 We asked:

Q4: Do you agree with our proposed approach to mailings by

rms that were not the CCA lender?

2.18 We did not receive any feedback on this from brokers or others. However, brokers

should feel able to approach us with any questions they may have about complying

with the final mailing requirements. Our supervisory work concerning the mailings will

include engagement with relevant larger brokers.

PS19/2

Annex 1

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

Annex 1

Compatibility statement

In CP18/33 we gave our view of the compatibility of our proposed mailing requirements

with our statutory and other obligations.

We were satisfied that the proposed mailing requirements were compatible with our

general duties in accordance with section 1B of FSMA, having regard to the regulatory

principles in section 3B.

The mailings would help to prompt relevant and potentially

disengaged previously rejected complainants to consider their position and potentially

complain before the 29 August 2019 deadline. And that helps us to deliver our

operational objectives of providing an appropriate degree of protection for consumers

and protecting and enhancing the integrity of the UK financial system.

The scope for the proposed mailing requirements to promote effective competition

was limited. But we had considered the FCA’s competition duty under s.1B(4). Our

proposed mailing requirements would not have a significant effect on competition

between firms or a disproportionate impact on the ability of new firms to enter the

market.

We also had due regard to the recommendations made by the Treasury under section

1JA FSMA about aspects of the economic policy of Her Majesty’s Government.

In particular, we considered that our proposed mailing requirements took into

consideration the recommendations relating to better outcomes for consumers. They

would help deliver better outcomes for consumers by helping to prompt recipients to

consider their position and potentially complain before the 29 August 2019 deadline.

We had not identified any likely significantly different impact on mutuals from our

proposed mailing requirements. In particular, we did not consider that our proposed

mailing requirements would lead to significant additional work for mutual firms, or

others, that had already been assessing RND when handling PPI complaints.

We had regard to the principles in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006

and the Regulator’s Compliance Code. Our view was that our proposed mailing

requirements were proportionate and would result in an appropriate level of consumer

protection, when balanced with the impacts on firms and on competition.

11 Section 1B of FSMA requires the FCA, when discharging its general functions and as far as is reasonably possible, to act in a way

that is compatible with its strategic objective and advances one or more of its operational objectives. The FCA also needs, as far

as is compatible with acting in a way that advances its consumer protection objective or integrity objective, to carry out its general

functions in a way that promotes effective competition in the interests of consumers.

12 The Treasury published its first set of recommendations for the FCA on 8 March 2017.

PS19/2

Annex 1

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

We asked:

Q7: Do you have any comments on our compatibility statement

in light of the proposed mailings?

We received no direct feedback on our statement. But the response which said we

should instead require firms to reassess cases clearly implied that it felt our mailing

approach provided less consumer protection, and less good outcomes, than this

alternative.

Our response

We have considered this feedback and suggested alternative approach

in chapters 1 and 2 above. For the reasons stated there, it does not

change our view of our approach, or of our compatibility statement

above. In our view, the new mailing requirements and guidance help us

to deliver:

• better consumer outcomes by prompting recipients to consider

their position and potentially complain before the 29 August 2019

deadline, and

• our operational objectives of providing an appropriate degree

of protection for consumers and protecting and enhancing the

integrity of the UK nancial system

PS19/2

Annex 2

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

Annex 2

List of non-confidential respondents

Building Societies Association

Finance and Leasing Association

Financial Services Consumer Panel

PS19/2

Annex 3

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

Annex 3

Abbreviations used in this paper

CBA cost benet analysis

CCA Consumer Credit Act 1974

CMC claims management company

DISP Dispute resolution: Complaints sourcebook

EIA equality impact assessment

FCA Financial Conduct Authority

FSMA Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

Plevin

Supreme Court judgment in Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance

Ltd [2014] UKSC 61

PPI payment protection insurance

RND

recurring non-disclosure(s) of the existence of, or level of,

commission and/or prot share

s140A section 140A of the CCA, which came into force in 2007

We have developed the policy in this Policy Statement in the context of the existing UK and EU regulatory

framework. The Government has made clear that it will continue to implement and apply EU law until the

UK has left the EU. We will keep the measures under review to assess whether any amendments may be

required in the event of changes in the UK regulatory framework in the future. All our publications are

available to download from www.fca.org.uk. If you would like to receive this paper in an alternative format,

please call 020 7066 9644 or email: publications_graphics@fca.org. uk or write to: Editorial and Digital

team, Financial Conduct Authority, 12 Endeavour Square, London E201JN

PS19/2

Appendix 1

Financial Conduct Authority

Previously rejected PPI complaints and further mailing requirements – Feedback on CP18/33 and nal rules and guidance

Appendix 1

Made rules and non-Handbook guidance

(legal instrument)

FCA 2019/7

DISPUTE RESOLUTION: COMPLAINTS (PAYMENT PROTECTION

INSURANCE) (AMENDMENT No 4) INSTRUMENT 2019

Powers exercised

A. The Financial Conduct Authority makes this instrument in the exercise of the

following powers and related provisions in the Financial Services and Markets Act

2000 (“the Act”):

(1) section 137A (FCA’s general rule-making power);

(2) section 137T (General supplementary powers);

(3) section 139A (Power of the FCA to give guidance); and

(4) paragraph 13 of Schedule 17 (FCA’s rules).

B. The rule-making powers listed above are specified for the purpose of section 138G(2)

(Rule-making instruments) of the Act.

Commencement

C. This instrument comes into force on 30 January 2019.

Amendments to the Handbook

D. The Dispute Resolution: Complaints sourcebook (DISP) is amended in accordance

with Annex A to this instrument.

Non-Handbook guidance

E. The non-Handbook guidance at Annex B to this instrument is issued.

Citation

F. This instrument may be cited as the Dispute Resolution: Complaints (Payment

Protection Insurance) (Amendment No 4) Instrument 2019.

By order of the Board

24 January 2019

FCA 2019/7

Page 2 of 8

Annex A

Amendments to the Dispute Resolution: Complaints sourcebook (DISP)

In this Annex, underlining indicates new text and striking thorough indicates deleted text.

Appendix

Handling Payment Protection Insurance complaints

App 3.1

Introduction

Application

3.1.1

…

(4)

It requires firms to send written communications to complainants in

certain circumstances where their previous complaint in relation to

the sale of a payment protection contract did not result in the firm

offering (or being required to pay) redress on the basis that the

complainant would not have bought the payment protection

contract that they bought (see DISP App 3.11).

…

App 3.11

Obligation to write letters to certain rejected complainants

Definitions

3.11.-1

In this section:

(1)

“purported complaint” means an expression of dissatisfaction

which would have been a complaint, had it related to an activity

which comes under the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman

Service;

(2)

“recurring non-disclosure of commission” means any omission of

the kind described at DISP App 3.1.1G(3)(b); and

(3)

“non-disclosure of commission” means “failure to disclose

commission” as defined at DISP App 3.1.5G(7) or recurring non-

disclosure of commission.

Letters required to be sent by 29 November 2017

3.11.1

This section applies DISP App 3.11.2R and DISP App 3.11.3R apply

where:

FCA 2019/7

Page 3 of 8

…

Letters required to be sent by 29 April 2019

3.11.4

DISP App 3.11.5R and DISP App 3.11.6R apply where, in relation to the

sale of a payment protection contract which covers, covered or purported

to cover a credit agreement (this includes partial coverage) a complainant

has made:

(1)

(in relation to a regular premium payment protection contract) a

complaint to the CCA lender that was rejected before 30 January

2019 in that:

(a)

it was considered under step 2 of DISP Appendix 3 but

redress on the basis that an unfair relationship under section

140A of the CCA had arisen was not offered; or

(b)

it was not considered under step 2 of DISP Appendix 3

because the complaint was treated as a purported complaint

that did not come under the jurisdiction of the Financial

Ombudsman Service; or

(2)

a purported complaint to the selling firm that would otherwise have

fallen to be considered under step 1 of DISP Appendix 3 but was

rejected before 30 January 2019 by that firm on the basis that it did

not come under the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman

Service.

3.11.5

The firm that rejected the complaint or purported complaint (or, where

applicable, its successor) must as soon as reasonably practicable, and no

later than 29 April 2019, send a written communication to the complainant

which:

(1)

in a case falling within DISP App 3.11.4R(1), informs the

complainant they can make a complaint against the CCA lender in

relation to recurring non-disclosure of commission;

(2)

in a case falling within DISP App 3.11.4R(2), informs the

complainant they can make a complaint against the CCA lender in

relation to non-disclosure of commission;

(3)

where the firm is not the CCA lender, makes clear the identity of

the CCA lender where this is known or can be identified by the

firm by following reasonable steps;

(4)

where the firm is the CCA lender, informs the complainant of its

arrangements for handling complaints about non-disclosure of

commission;

FCA 2019/7

Page 4 of 8

(5)

informs the complainant of the 29 August 2019 time limit; and

(6)

refers to the availability of relevant further information on the

FCA’s website (whose address should be provided) or by

contacting the FCA’s PPI contact centre (the telephone number of

which should be provided).

3.11.6

The obligation to send a written communication does not apply where:

(1)

the firm is otherwise required to send such a written

communication is the CCA lender, and knows that no non-

disclosure of commission has occurred during a time which falls

within the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service;

(2)

the complainant has already been offered or paid redress in respect

of the payment protection contract (either on the basis that the

complainant would not have bought the payment protection

contract they bought or on the basis that an unfair relationship

under section 140A of the CCA had arisen) by 29 April 2019;

(3)

the CCA lender or the Financial Ombudsman Service has indicated

to the complainant in writing that it will consider or reconsider the

complaint or purported complaint and that consideration is not

completed by 29 April 2019; or

(4)

the CCA lender has, when considering or reconsidering a

complaint or purported complaint, already considered recurring

non-disclosure of commission and not offered redress on the basis

that an unfair relationship under section 140A of the CCA had

arisen.

FCA 2019/7

Page 5 of 8

Annex B

Non-Handbook guidance

1. The four boxes below describe the criteria that we consider put a previous complainant into

one of four populations, including as relevant to:

• a supplementary mailing for sellers under our existing Plevin mailing rule in DISP

3.11.2R (Box 1)

• our new mailing requirement in DISP App 3.11.5R (as it applies to lenders) in relation

to the recurring non-disclosure(s) of the existence of, or level of, commission and/or

profit share (RND) (Box 2)

• our new mailing requirement in DISP App 3.11.5R (as it applies to PPI sellers

(including brokers)) in relation to RND (Box 3) and Plevin (Box 4)

2. In the scenarios in each box, the seller may or may not be the same firm as the lender.

3. DISP App 3.11.5R treats the cases in Boxes 3 and 4 as equivalent, in that both should be

told by a letter that they can make a new complaint about non-disclosure of commission

(which could be in light of RND or Plevin, depending on the circumstances).

Box 1 Cases requiring supplementary mailing under existing Plevin mailing rule

The existing Plevin mailing obligation (DISP App 3.11.2R) requires the seller to write to consumers

who made previous mis-selling complaints which it rejected on the merits as not mis-sold (if the

credit agreement remained in force at 6 April 2008 and so is in scope of s140A Consumer Credit

Act 1974 (CCA)).

We consider that the supplementary mailing required under the Plevin mailing rule will be relevant

to the following classes of previous regular premium PPI complaint, where firms did not include

these in their previous mailing.

Restricted credit

The credit agreement was entered and the PPI sold before 1 December 2001 and the seller was in

a relevant Ombudsman predecessor scheme then, but the lender wasn’t.

The credit agreement was entered and the PPI sold between 1 December 2001 and 14 January 2005,

and the seller was in a relevant Ombudsman predecessor scheme then (with the lender’s status then

irrelevant as all restricted credit acts and omissions in that period are out of jurisdiction).

The credit agreement was entered and the PPI sold between 14 January 2005 and 6 April 2007 (with

the seller’s status then irrelevant as all PPI sales in that period are in jurisdiction, and the lender’s

status then irrelevant as all restricted credit acts and omissions in that period are out of jurisdiction).

Non-restricted credit

The credit agreement was entered and the PPI sold before 1 December 2001 and the seller was in

a relevant Ombudsman predecessor scheme then, but the lender wasn’t.

In practice, we will not now insist on firms mailing those among these cases where the firm is also

the lender and knows that there was no RND on or after 6 April 2007. This is because those cases

would involve no loss on or after 6 April 2007 that needed to be redressed.

FCA 2019/7

Page 6 of 8

Box 2 - Cases where a previous Plevin complaint has been rejected but a new complaint

could be made in light of RND

We consider that DISP App 3.11.5R as it applies to lenders will be relevant to the following

classes of previous regular premium PPI complaint.

a. Complaints about restricted or non-restricted credit PPI that have been rejected on the

merits – eg the non-disclosed commission at point of sale was under the tipping point

and it wasn’t reasonably foreseeable then that it would go above the tipping point.

We would expect the firm to write to such cases about RND where commission had

gone up after point of sale. We would expect this not only where it had gone above the

50% presumptive tipping point, as there may be some cases where a lower tipping point

might apply in the particular recipient’s circumstances.

b. Complaints about restricted or non-restricted credit PPI that have been rejected as out of

jurisdiction. This would be relevant to:

Restricted credit

The credit agreement was entered and the PPI sold before 1 December 2001 and the lender

was not in a relevant Ombudsman predecessor scheme then.

The credit agreement was entered and the PPI sold between 1 December 2001 and 6 April

2007. The lender’s status then is irrelevant because all restricted credit acts and omissions in

that period are out of jurisdiction.

These consumers can make a new complaint in light of RND if:

• the credit agreement remained in force at 6 April 2008 and so is in scope of s140A

CCA, and

• there is RND on or after 6 April 2007, so that an RND complaint made in response to

the mailing would be in DISP jurisdiction

Non-restricted credit

The credit agreement was entered and the PPI sold before 1 December 2001 and the lender

was not in a relevant Ombudsman predecessor scheme then.

These consumers can make a new complaint in light of RND if:

• the credit agreement remained in force at 6 April 2008 and so is in scope of s140A

CCA, and

• there is RND on or after 1 December 2001, so that an RND complaint made in

response to the mailing would be in DISP jurisdiction

FCA 2019/7

Page 7 of 8

Box 3

Cases where a previous mis-selling complaint had been rejected as out of jurisdiction and

so the consumer had not been mailed about Plevin, but they can make an RND complaint

that is in jurisdiction

We consider that DISP App 3.11.5R as it applies to sellers will be relevant to the following

classes of previous regular premium PPI complaint.

Restricted credit

The credit agreement was entered and the PPI sold before 1 December 2001 and neither the

seller nor lender was in a relevant Ombudsman predecessor scheme then.

The credit agreement was entered and the PPI sold between 1 December 2001 and 14 January

2005, and the seller was not in a relevant Ombudsman predecessor scheme then. The lender’s

status then is irrelevant because all restricted credit acts and omissions in that period are out of

jurisdiction.

These consumers can make a new complaint in light of RND if:

• the credit agreement remained in force at 6 April 2008 and so is in scope of s140A CCA, and

• there is RND on or after 6 April 2007, so that an RND complaint made in response to the

mailing would be in DISP jurisdiction

Non-restricted credit

The credit agreement was entered and the PPI sold before 1 December 2001 and neither the

seller nor lender was in a relevant Ombudsman predecessor scheme then.

These consumers can make a new complaint in light of RND if:

• the credit agreement remained in force at 6 April 2008 and so is in scope of s140 CCA, and

• there is RND on or after 1 December 2001, so that an RND complaint made in response to

the mailing would be in DISP jurisdiction

FCA 2019/7

Page 8 of 8

Box 4

Cases where a previous mis-selling complaint had been rejected as out of jurisdiction and

so the consumer had not been mailed about Plevin, but they can make a Plevin complaint

in jurisdiction

We consider that DISP App 3.11.5R as it applies to sellers will be relevant to the following

classes of previous complaint about regular premium PPI or single premium PPI.

Restricted credit

The credit agreement was entered and the PPI sold before 1 December 2001 and the seller was

not in a relevant Ombudsman predecessor scheme then, but the lender was.

These consumers can make a new complaint in light of Plevin that would be in DISP

jurisdiction if:

• the credit agreement remained in force at 6 April 2008 and so is in scope of s140A CCA

Non-restricted credit

The credit agreement was entered and the PPI sold before 1 December 2001 and the seller was

not in a relevant Ombudsman predecessor scheme then, but the lender was.

The credit agreement was entered and the PPI sold between 1 December 2001 and 14 January

2005, and the seller was not in a relevant Ombudsman predecessor scheme then. The lender’s

status then is irrelevant as non-restricted credit in that period is all in jurisdiction.

These consumers can make a new complaint in light of Plevin that would be in DISP

jurisdiction if:

• the credit agreement remained in force at 6 April 2008 and so is in scope of s140A CCA

(Expressions in the text in Annex B which are defined in the Glossary to the FCA

Handbook of rules and guidance have the meanings given in those definitions, unless the

context otherwise requires. “PPI” means “payment protection contract” and

“Ombudsman predecessor scheme” means “former scheme”, as defined in the

Glossary.)

12 Endeavour Square London E20 1JN

Telephone: +44 (0)20 7066 1000

Website: www.fca.org.uk

Pub ref: 005866