Related provisions for DISP App 3.7.1
1 - 6 of 6 items.
Where the firm concludes that the complainant would not have bought the payment protection contract he bought, and the firm is not using the alternative approach to redress (set out in DISP App 3.7.7 E to 3.7.15 E) or other appropriate redress (see DISP App 3.8), the firm should, as far as practicable, put the complainant in the position he would have been if he had not bought any payment protection contract.
(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
In this appendix:(1) (a) at step 1,3 “historic interest” means the interest the complainant paid to the firm because a payment protection contract was added to a loan or credit product;3(b) at step 2, “historic interest” means in relation to any sum, the interest the complainant paid as a result of that sum being included in the loan or credit product;32(2) "simple interest" means a non-compound rate of 8% per annum;3(3) "claim" means a claim by a complainant seeking to rely upon
In relation to a regular premium payment protection contract, the firm should pay to the complainant in respect of each redress period a sum equal to:(1) an amount appropriately representing the commission paid in respect of that period; plus (2) an amount appropriately representing profit share in respect of that period; minus (3) 50% of the amount appropriately representing the total amount paid in respect of that period2 (or other percentage as in DISP App 3.7A.4E). A firm
If the complainant has received any rebate, the firm may calculate the amount of the rebate that represents commission and actual profit share sums paid up to the point of the rebate that were more than 50% (or such other percentage determined under DISP App 3.7A.4E) of the total amount paid in relation to the payment protection contract and deduct this from the amount of redress otherwise payable to the complainant.
In assessing redress, the firm should consider whether there are any other further losses that flow from its breach or failing or from its failure to disclose commission (as applicable), 1 that were reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the firm's breach or failing or of its failure to disclose commission,1 for example, where the payment protection contract's cost or rejected claims contributed to affordability issues for the associated loan or credit which led to arrears
Where a firm identifies (from its complaints or otherwise) recurring or systemic problems in its sales practices for a particular type of payment protection contract, either for its sales in general or for those from a particular location or sales channel, it should (in accordance with Principle 6 (Customers' interests) and to the extent that it applies), consider whether it ought to act with regard to the position of customers who may have suffered detriment from, or been potentially