MotoNovo Is Running Out of Road on GAP Complaints

Bless, MotoNovo is still trying to knock out GAP insurance complaints on limitation grounds, even though it already knows where this ends.

This is not a lender feeling its way through an uncertain issue.

MotoNovo is fully aware that these time-bar arguments do not hold up.

It knows that from Financial Ombudsman Service decisions against other firms, and it knows it from decisions involving MotoNovo itself.

So when it keeps reaching for the same argument, it is not because the position is unclear.

It is because the alternatives are far more uncomfortable.

At this point, MotoNovo’s behaviour has the feel of a firm lashing out because its usual escape routes are closing in around it.

The image that comes to mind is the last throes of a dying snake, quite apt considering it’s involvement in the motor finance scandal. There is movement, there is noise, there is still an attempt to strike, but the end result is the same.

It is finished. The argument is spent. MotoNovo just does not want to accept it.

It knows exactly what the real problem is

The real issue here has never been limitation, MotoNovo knows that perfectly well.

The real issue is the concealment of the chain commission built into the GAP insurance products it sold, and that is the central point it does not want examined too closely.

Because once the complaint is looked at properly, the rot is found In the product itself, in the sales process, and in what the customer was not told.

That is why these time-bar arguments are cynical.

They’re not a genuine legal position, but a deliberate attempt to keep the spotlight off what was actually going on.

MotoNovo does not need to be told this. It already knows.

Limitation is going nowhere

The truth is that limitation arguments in these GAP complaints are futile, and MotoNovo knows they are futile.

The Supreme Court judgment in Canada Square versus Potter made it clear that where deliberate concealment exists, limitation does not run until the relevant facts are disclosed.

Until such time are MotoNovo discloses the salient facts, namely the amount of chain commission linked to the sale of the GAP product, the clock does not start.

This is supported by FOS decisions that have already gone against firms on this point, including MotoNovo itself, so the continued reliance on time-bar language is not persuasive, and it is not clever.

It is a dead argument being dragged back onto the stage in the hope that repetition might somehow revive it.

It will not.

Worse still, every time MotoNovo tries it again, the position looks more deliberate.

A firm can only hide behind a failed argument so many times before it becomes obvious that it is used only to be obstructive.

A lender that knows better, but does it anyway

That is the part MotoNovo should be worried about.

There is a world of difference between getting something wrong and persisting with it after you already know better.

MotoNovo has had the benefit of FOS decisions, and it has seen what happens when these arguments are tested.

It knows the complaint cannot simply be swatted away with a lazy reference to time limits, yet it carries on.

Why?

Because dealing with these complaints properly means confronting what was concealed within the GAP products.

It means engaging with the chain commission issue and it means facing the fact that the real vulnerability in its position lies not in timing, but in disclosure and fairness.

So instead, MotoNovo keeps trying to move the fight somewhere safer.

The problem for MotoNovo is that safer ground has run out.

We have put MotoNovo on notice

MotoNovo has now been put on fourteen days notice that if this continues, a formal complaint will be made to the FCA.

And if that happens, we will write about that too.

That is not a threat made for effect, but it is a straightforward warning that there comes a point where repeated reliance on arguments a firm knows are hopeless stops being poor complaint handling and starts raising wider questions about conduct.

MotoNovo should think carefully about that.

If it wants to keep rejecting GAP complaints using reasoning that has already been shown to fail, while sidestepping the real issue of concealed chain commission, then it should not be surprised when the matter moves beyond the complaint file and into a different arena altogether.

MotoNovo is running out of places to hide

That is really what this comes down to.

MotoNovo is not in control of this issue. It is reacting to it, trying desperately to contain it. It is trying to keep valid complaints tied up in procedural nonsense because it does not like where the substance leads.

But the substance is not going away, and neither are we.

MotoNovo cannot keep trying the same old lines, pretending limitation is the answer. Nor can keep acting as though the next rejection letter might somehow succeed where the last ones failed.

This is a lender running out of road, running out of excuses, and running out of time.

Final thought

MotoNovo’s latest attempt to time-bar GAP complaints does not look strong. It looks weak, tired and increasingly desperate.

It knows the FOS position.
It knows its own arguments have already failed.
It knows concealment of chain commission is the real issue sitting underneath these complaints.

That is why this persistent move feels so transparent.

MotoNovo does not need another limitation argument. It needs another excuse.