Court bars claimant from seeking further recovery

[EXC]

''A High Court judgment handed down yesterday confirms that a claimant who accepts a final decision from the Financial Ombudsman Service is bound by it and will not subsequently be able to bring a civil claim in relation to the same matter.''

United Kingdom, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Financial Ombudsman Award Bars Further Recovery in Civil Proceedings - CMS Cameron McKenna LLP - 08/11/2010, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution, Banking/ Finance

FTAdviser.com - Court ruling on the Fos and civil claims

[Amethyst]

Re: Court bars claimant from seeking further recovery

Only if they accept the decision - I thought that was a given already tbh but good to have it definitive.
The case is Andrews v SBJ Benefit Consultants [2010]
3rd Nov 2010 ... TLC 319/10 Andrews v SBJ Benefit Consultants. COURT 59. Before MR J RANDALL QC (Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division)

Cases refered to Bunney v Burns Anderson plc [2007] EWHC 1240 (Ch)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1240.html

The Financial Services Ombudsman did not have the power to make a direction under s 229(2)(b) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 that would require a respondent to make a money award exceeding the statutory cap provided in the Ombudsman scheme rules.

[EXC]

Re: Court bars claimant from seeking further recovery

Only if they accept the decision

Indeed.

It's being covered on Money Box today BBC News - Identity protection dispute

Also looks like identity fraud insurance mis-selling is creeping in to replace PPI.

[Amethyst]

Re: Court bars claimant from seeking further recovery

Identity fraud insurance ? ffs how do people get conned in to buying these crap products. Absolutely unecessary.

[EXC]

Re: Court bars claimant from seeking further recovery

Identity fraud insurance ? ffs how do people get conned in to buying these crap products. Absolutely unecessary.

It's complete b******s.

You are automatically protected from fraud by FSA requirements that banks have to reimburse any loss unless they can prove you are culpable.

[EXC]

Re: Court bars claimant from seeking further recovery

It seems that credit card providers such as Barclaycard, HSBC, Egg, RBS & Santander are farming out their card verification services to an outfit called CPP http://www.cppbusinesspartners.co.uk/

So when you receive your credit card you are told to call a number to verify the card, but the number is in fact that of CPP - an identity & card insurance company who give the bank a commission on every policy sold thus allowing the banks to wash their hands of any subsequent mis-selling.

It's the first item on the Money Box programme BBC iPlayer - Money Box: 13/11/2010

[righty]

Re: Court bars claimant from seeking further recovery

This makes the so-called regulators even more of an irrelevance

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Court bars claimant from seeking further recovery

will the banks be able to wash there hands over any possible mis selling though if it was they that gave the number for verification ? Im not so sure they can
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
surely the banks and cpp would be jointly liable

[The Debt Star]

Re: Court bars claimant from seeking further recovery

will the banks be able to wash there hands over any possible mis selling though if it was they that gave the number for verification ? Im not so sure they can

Yes, a fiduciary duty of care owed by the cc companies to the consumer, as it is they who are introducing their customer to a thrd party agency?

[righty]

Re: Court bars claimant from seeking further recovery

Correct me if 'm wrong but I think you'll find that lenders only owe a fiduciary duty to their investors/savers & not to their borrowers
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
White & Case LLP - Publications - Does a Lender Owe a Duty of Care to a Borrower When Exercising Security Granted in Support of that Debt?

[The Debt Star]

Re: Court bars claimant from seeking further recovery

Correct me if 'm wrong but I think you'll find that lenders only owe a fiduciary duty to their investors/savers & not to their borrowers
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
White & Case LLP - Publications - Does a Lender Owe a Duty of Care to a Borrower When Exercising Security Granted in Support of that Debt?

Hi. Well that was what the "?" was for at the end of my sentence. I'm sure you are right that they owe no fiduciary duty of care, but do they owe a "duty of care" (or something similar, outside of any regulatory rules) to their customers per se? It would be incredible to think that a high street bank could sell credit, gain commission on it, package that product up as theirs and not owe a duty of care to the consumer who bought it. That was what I was trying to ask, albeit not very well!

[righty]

Re: Court bars claimant from seeking further recovery

The answer is in the judgment No duty is owed

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Court bars claimant from seeking further recovery

would the insurance regulator hold this data? Would be interesting to know if the FOS has recieved any complaints and if they are on the rise will check out there complaint reports later

[EXC]

Re: Court bars claimant from seeking further recovery

would the insurance regulator hold this data? Would be interesting to know if the FOS has recieved any complaints and if they are on the rise will check out there complaint reports later

That would be FSA but I doubt they'd hold that data.

As for complaints to the FOS I'm not sure they would break down complaints on insurance to that degree but worth a check.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Court bars claimant from seeking further recovery

yup Exc it is probably under the heading of "General Insurance" which says a lot lol