If you were told that your PPI claim was rejected, it is natural to assume that nothing more can be done. However, a rejection does not always mean that a claim was invalid or that no further options exist.
Over time, guidance from regulators and the courts has clarified when a PPI policy may give rise to compensation, including situations where complaints were previously assessed under narrower or outdated criteria.
As a result, some consumers whose claims were rejected in the past may still be eligible to reclaim PPI, particularly where issues such as mis-selling, incomplete information, or undisclosed commission were not fully considered at the time.
How Do PPI Complaints Work
Image by @CRSteam
All PPI complaints are assessed within a structured regulatory framework. Firms must consider the available evidence, apply FCA complaint-handling rules, and provide consumers with a written explanation of their decision.
A rejected attempt to claim PPI does not mean the complaint was ignored or dismissed without consideration. More commonly, it means the firm concluded that the complaint did not meet the regulatory threshold for redress at the time it was assessed. This may relate to how the policy was sold, what disclosures were made, or whether the complaint fell within the applicable time limits.
Importantly, rejection does not equate to a finding that mis sold PPI never occurred. It reflects a regulatory judgment based on defined tests, which can differ depending on the legal basis on which the consumer sought to claim PPI [2][3][4].
Common Reasons Why PPI Claims Are Rejected
Understanding the reasons why PPI claims are rejected helps explain why outcomes vary and why some consumers received negative decisions even where PPI was widely criticised.
Time Limits and the PPI Deadline
One of the most common reasons an attempt to claim PPI was rejected is that it was considered out of time. In addition to general limitation rules, most PPI complaints became subject to a final deadline of 29 August 2019. Complaints submitted after that date were generally not required to be considered.
This timing issue alone accounts for a significant number of rejected efforts to reclaim PPI.
Evidence and Sales Records
Some PPI complaints were rejected because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate how the policy was sold. This is particularly common with older agreements, where records are incomplete or no longer available. In such cases, firms are required to reach decisions based on what can reasonably be established from the available material.
Mis-Selling Tests Not Met
Another reason a consumer may have been unable to claim PPI successfully is where the firm concluded that the policy was suitable and that key information was adequately explained at the time of sale. While dissatisfaction with the product is understandable, it does not automatically meet the regulatory definition of mis sold PPI.
Through MoneySavingExpert, Martin Lewis PPI commentary has consistently highlighted that many PPI policies were mis-sold. However, even against that backdrop, individual attempts to claim PPI were still assessed against formal legal and regulatory tests, which explains why some complaints were rejected despite widespread criticism of PPI practices [1][2][4][9][14].
A previously rejected PPI complaint does not necessarily mean that all potential issues have been exhausted. In some cases, rejection occurred because the complaint was assessed solely on traditional mis sold PPI criteria, without considering a separate legal route introduced following a Supreme Court decision.
Plevin PPI refers to complaints based on the non-disclosure of commission paid out of a PPI premium. Rather than focusing on whether the insurance was suitable or clearly explained, Plevin-based complaints examine whether a high level of commission was paid without the consumer’s knowledge, and whether that non-disclosure contributed to an unfair relationship under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
The Supreme Court made clear that commission itself is not unlawful. However, where commission was unusually high and not disclosed, this lack of transparency could be relevant when assessing fairness. Crucially, this assessment is distinct from traditional mis-selling and does not depend on whether the policy was ever claimed on.
For readers who want to review the Court’s reasoning in full, the Supreme Court’s Plevin judgment is available to download here [11][12][13].
Can a Previously Rejected PPI Claim Be Reassessed Under Plevin?
Image by @CRSteam
One of the most common questions from consumers who were told they could not reclaim PPI is whether a rejected complaint can later be reconsidered on a different basis. In some circumstances, the answer may be yes.
Following the Plevin decision, the Financial Conduct Authority introduced a new basis for assessing certain PPI complaints where commission disclosure was the central issue. This meant that a complaint previously rejected as not mis-sold could still be reviewed to determine whether an undisclosed commission resulted in an unfair relationship.
The FCA’s guidance explains that this does not reopen all rejected claims. Each case must still be assessed individually, taking into account the level of commission, what information was provided to the consumer, and whether the applicable time limits are met.
The document setting out this approach can be downloaded here: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/documents/new-basis-for-making-a-ppi-complaint.pdf
In practice, this distinction helps explain why some consumers later consider CRS Plevin Claims as a separate review route, particularly where an earlier attempt to claim PPI was assessed only on traditional mis-selling criteria and not on commission disclosure [2][5].
What Happens If an Attempt to Claim PPI Is Rejected Again?
If a firm maintains its decision to reject a PPI complaint, it must issue a final response explaining how the complaint was assessed and why it was not upheld. This explanation should clearly set out how the firm applied the relevant rules, including any consideration of commission and fairness where applicable.
Where a consumer disagrees with that outcome, they may refer the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) for independent review. The Ombudsman considers the complaint by applying the relevant law, FCA rules, and established guidance, including how Plevin-related commission issues should be assessed.
Decisions made by the Financial Ombudsman Service are binding on firms, although consumers are not obliged to accept the outcome if they do not agree with it. This escalation route is intended to provide an impartial resolution where disputes cannot be resolved directly between the consumer and the firm [2][4][7][8].
Consumer Rights Solicitors and Previously Rejected PPI Claims
Consumer Rights Solicitors is a UK-based law firm focusing on consumer-related legal matters, including disputes arising from regulated financial products and consumer credit agreements.
The firm operates within the UK’s regulated legal framework and follows applicable guidance issued by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Financial Ombudsman Service. Its work involves reviewing previously rejected PPI claims to determine whether they were assessed under the correct regulatory basis, including whether a Plevin analysis may be relevant.
Conclusion
A rejected PPI complaint does not always represent the end of the process. In many cases, rejection reflects how a claim was assessed under a particular set of rules, at a particular point in time.
For consumers looking to reclaim PPI, understanding the reason for rejection is crucial. Some claims fail because of time limits or lack of evidence, while others were assessed only on traditional mis-selling grounds and did not consider whether an undisclosed commission could be relevant under Plevin.
Ultimately, each case depends on its own facts, the evidence available, and the applicable legal framework. Clarity around these issues allows consumers to make informed decisions about whether any further steps may be appropriate.
FAQ
What are the main reasons why PPI claims are rejected?
The most common reasons why PPI claims are rejected include:
- the complaint being out of time under regulatory deadlines,
- insufficient evidence about how the policy was sold, or
- a finding that the policy met suitability and disclosure standards at the time.
Each PPI claim is assessed individually under FCA rules.
Can I reclaim PPI if my complaint was rejected before?
In some circumstances, it may still be possible to reclaim PPI, depending on why the original complaint was rejected. A rejection based on traditional mis-selling does not always mean that other legal considerations, such as commission disclosure, were assessed.
What is Plevin PPI?
Plevin PPI refers to complaints based on undisclosed commission paid out of a PPI premium. Rather than focusing on whether the policy was suitable, this approach considers whether a high level of commission was kept without the consumer being told, and whether that lack of transparency resulted in an unfair relationship.
Does mis sold PPI still matter after a rejection?
Yes, mis sold PPI remains relevant, but rejection often means the firm concluded that mis-selling tests were not met under the rules applied. However, mis-selling and Plevin are assessed under different legal frameworks, which is why a rejected outcome does not always end the matter.
What happens if I try to claim PPI again and it is rejected?
If an attempt to claim PPI is rejected again, the firm must explain its reasoning in writing. Where the consumer disagrees, the complaint may be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which independently reviews the decision using the relevant law and FCA guidance.
How does Martin Lewis PPI guidance fit into rejected claims?
Martin Lewis has long described PPI as one of the largest consumer financial scandals in the UK, affecting millions of borrowers over several decades. Through MoneySavingExpert, he consistently highlighted that many PPI policies were mis-sold.
That commentary helped many consumers understand why they might seek to reclaim PPI, but individual complaints have always been decided using formal legal and regulatory tests, which explains why outcomes varied.
Can Consumer Rights Solicitors help with rejected PPI complaints?
Consumer Rights Solicitors PPI support focuses on reviewing rejected outcomes and assessing whether the correct regulatory or legal framework was applied. This can include considering whether Plevin Claims may be relevant where commission disclosure was not previously assessed.
References
[1]https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/ppi-complaints
[2]https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/policy-statements/ps17-3-payment-protection-insurance-complaints
[3]https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/policy/ps17-03.pdf
[4]https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DISP/App/3/?view=chapter
[5]https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/documents/new-basis-for-making-a-ppi-complaint.pdf
[6]https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/ppi/ppi-complaints-end-leaflet.pdf
[7]https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/complaints-deal/ppi
[9]https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/expect/time-limits
[10]https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DISP/1/6.html
[11]https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2014_0037_judgment_fdd9b1ec26.pdf
[12]https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2014_0037_press_summary_476e055c2d.pdf
[13]https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/140A
[14]https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/can-i-still-reclaim-ppi/
[15]https://crsolicitors.co.uk/service/plevin-ppi-claims/
[16]https://crsolicitors.co.uk/service/previously-rejected-ppi-claims/
