QuickQuid offering a payout on one loan but not upheld another 4 due to time limit.

[bflare]

Hello. I have just had an offer of £700.00 for a payday loan I took out in 2013. It was only for £100 but I rolled it over many times. They have declined 4 other loans by saying they are not within the time limit. QuickQuid say:

You have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, free of charge.
The Ombudsman might not be able to consider your complaint if:
• what you’re complaining about happened more than six years ago, and
• you’re complaining more than three years after you realised (or should have realised) that there was a problem.
We think that some of your complaint was made outside of these time limits but this is a matter for the Ombudsman to decide. If the Ombudsman agrees with us, they will not have our permission to consider your complaint and so will only be able to do so in very limited circumstances, such as in the case of exceptional circumstances.

The loans were older than 6 six & were taken out in 2011 & 2012 however I only became aware that I could complain in January 2019 which falls in line with the second point above. I have been given the following link from Debt Camel which has a slightly different statement to the second point from QuickQuid. https://debtcamel.co.uk/fos-time-lim...-loan-refunds/

It says:

The Ombudsman cannot consider a complaint if the complainant refers it to the Financial Ombudsman Service: …

(2) more than:

(a) six years after the event complained of; or (if later)
(b) three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint.

To me it looks like QuickQuid has changed the wording slightly to favour them.

Anyway, I am now considering taking my complaint further to the FOS for them to look at the other 4 loans that were not upheld. Do you think this is what I should do or just take the £700.00 which I am very happy with by the way.

Thanks.

[Debt Camel]

I guess you are thinking that QQ's statement with its "and" is more negative than the Ombudsman rules which say "or"? I don't actually think this is significant. QQ has rephrased the FOS rules is rather simpler English - which is good! - but not actually changed the substance of what they mean.

"We think that some of your complaint was made outside of these time limits but this is a matter for the Ombudsman to decide." that is also accurate.

"If the Ombudsman agrees with us, they will not have our permission to consider your complaint" is technically accurate...

BUT

I think the last statement is misleading because QQ knows perfectly well that FOS is VERY VERY unlikely to agree with them. And so it is wrong to leave a customer with the impression that their case may well be time-barred.

So the question is, should you send your case to FOS ignoring the time bar element.

Here the important factors are:

1) FOS very often only orders a refund not for all loans but for later loans. So you are unlikely to get all 5 refunded (although it is possible), you may only get the last two or three refunded. This is especially likely to happen when the loan size is small.
2) do you know how many times you rolled loans 1,2,3,4? If you rolled some of these many times they are more likely to be refunded even though the loan sizes are small.
3) these over 6 year cases are going very slowly at the moment. Many are taking years! FOS is hoping to get QQ to reconsider large numbers of them which would speed things up.

In the end if you are happy with £700 as being suitable recompense for the poor lending, then is it worth dragging this out for a long while? You need to know the amount of interest you paid on the earlier loans and think about which of them FOS may say should be refunded. If your 700 could turn into £2000 that would be a lot more, but if the earlier loans were rolled less and it may only turn into £1000 is that worth the delay and hassle for you?

It's easy to send a case to FOS, but you may still prefer the simple route of getting some money now and getting closure. this is quite a personal decision.

[charitynjw]

Even if FOS won't handle it, you can take action yourself.

I believe the relevant Act/section is
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58/section/14A

[bflare]

I guess you are thinking that QQ's statement with its "and" is more negative than the Ombudsman rules which say "or"? I don't actually think this is significant. QQ has rephrased the FOS rules is rather simpler English - which is good! - but not actually changed the substance of what they mean.

"We think that some of your complaint was made outside of these time limits but this is a matter for the Ombudsman to decide." that is also accurate.

"If the Ombudsman agrees with us, they will not have our permission to consider your complaint" is technically accurate...

BUT

I think the last statement is misleading because QQ knows perfectly well that FOS is VERY VERY unlikely to agree with them. And so it is wrong to leave a customer with the impression that their case may well be time-barred.

So the question is, should you send your case to FOS ignoring the time bar element.

Here the important factors are:

1) FOS very often only orders a refund not for all loans but for later loans. So you are unlikely to get all 5 refunded (although it is possible), you may only get the last two or three refunded. This is especially likely to happen when the loan size is small.
2) do you know how many times you rolled loans 1,2,3,4? If you rolled some of these many times they are more likely to be refunded even though the loan sizes are small.
3) these over 6 year cases are going very slowly at the moment. Many are taking years! FOS is hoping to get QQ to reconsider large numbers of them which would speed things up.

In the end if you are happy with £700 as being suitable recompense for the poor lending, then is it worth dragging this out for a long while? You need to know the amount of interest you paid on the earlier loans and think about which of them FOS may say should be refunded. If your 700 could turn into £2000 that would be a lot more, but if the earlier loans were rolled less and it may only turn into £1000 is that worth the delay and hassle for you?

It's easy to send a case to FOS, but you may still prefer the simple route of getting some money now and getting closure. this is quite a personal decision.

I have worked out how much I would get back from the other 4 loans & it is as follows.

1) Year 2011 - £164
2) Year 2011 - £93
3) Year 2011 - £93
4) Year 2012 - £506

So the loan which is just over the six year limit in 2012 would be the biggest refund. & that is the one with the most extensions at 5. I am thinking that it is probably not worth the hassle as the money could be used for a car MOT that I have coming up or other more important things.