Done all your PPI claims what now...... Read on

[PPIWarrior]

I have a que of companies asking me for PPI claims that have been done and worked... so what the deal? Well you guys hear of Pelvin vs Paragon... No, well here is the short version...

The recent Plevin versus Paragon and McWilliam versus Norton cases have opened up a market which, due to the restrictions of Insurance Code Of Business has previously been out of reach of CMC's in pursuit of refunds for their clients.

The FCA have recently published their intention to review the Plevin ruling and issue guidance to lenders in relation to the calculations of redress and also how these cases should be reviewed. This consultation and final policy could be 12 - 18 months away from completion and so the normal route to claim via the lender and FOS will not be open to CMC's for some time.

Deal are upfront money and back-end share... what have you got to loose? :santa_smiley:

I have been introduced to companies that have devised a new product which, through litigation means that there is no need to wait.




PPIWarrior

[Amethyst]

Re: Done all your PPI claims what now...... Read on

"Upfront Money" ?? Really....??? So, do you have a claims management licence?

[teaboy2]

Re: Done all your PPI claims what now...... Read on

"Upfront Money" ?? Really....??? So, do you have a claims management licence?

Your joking right? They don't even have TV lincence in India!!

[Amethyst]

Re: Done all your PPI claims what now...... Read on

I meant to say last night, the FOS actually are already considering all PPI complaints under ''Plevin''.

Letter from FOS - January 2016



and the FCA consultation closes in February 2016

CP15/39: Rules and guidance on payment protection insurance complaints [PDF]
We have also published the following accompanying research documents:
Understanding PPI redress from a consumer perspective [PDF]
PPI research analytical report [PDF]
PPI research technical report [PDF]


We want to know what you think of these proposals. Please respond to our questions using our online form by 26 February 2016.

and this is the addition to the FCA redress rules for firms;





READ the document -> https://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/docu...s-and-guidance

App
3.3A.3
G DISP App 3.3A.2E reflects section 140B(9) of the CCA which provides (in summary) that if the debtor alleges that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor, it is for the creditor to prove
to the contrary.

App
3.3A.4
E (1) The firm should presume that the failure to disclose gave rise to an unfair relationship under section 140A of the CCA if the commission was, or had the potential to be, 50% or more.
(2) The firm should presume that the failure to disclose did not give rise to an unfair relationship under section 140A of the CCA if the commission was less than 50% or did not have the potential to be 50% or more.

App
3.3A.5
G The presumption in DISP App 3.3A.4E(1) is rebuttable. Examples of factors which may contribute to its rebuttal include:
(1) where the insurer provided the payment protection contract to an intermediary rather than the CCA lender and the CCA lender was not party to the commission agreement;
(2) the complainant could reasonably be expected to be aware of the level of commission (e.g. because they worked in a relevant role in the financial services industry);
(3) disclosure would have made no difference whatsoever to the complainant’s judgment about the value of the payment protection contract.

App
3.3A.6
G DISP App 3.3A.5G(3) is only likely to be relevant in limited circumstances. If the firm concludes that disclosure would have at least caused the complainant to question whether the payment protection contract represented value for money and whether it was a sensible transaction to enter into (regardless of whether they may or may not have ultimately gone ahead with the purchase), then the presumption in DISP App 3.3A.4E(1) is unlikely to be rebutted on the ground set out in DISP App 3.3A.5G(3).

App
3.3A.7
G The presumption in DISP App 3.3A.4E(2) is rebuttable. Examples of factors which may contribute to its rebuttal include:
(1) the complainant was in particularly difficult financial circumstances;
(2) the complainant can establish that they had a track record of showing a close interest in the commission payable on other purchases.

App
3.3A.8
G Where thfeir m lacks a record of the level of commission applicable to a particular payment protection contract sale, it should make reasonable assumptions about it based on, for example, commission levels in respect of
which records are held and general commercial trends in the industry during the period in question.

App 3.7A Approach to redress at step 2
App
3.7A.1
E This section applies to a CCA lender at step 2.
App
3.7A.2
E Where the firm concludes in accordance with DISP App 3.3A that the nondisclosure has given rise to an unfair relationship under section 140A of the CCA, the firm should remedy the unfairness.

App
3.7A.3
E Except where DISP 3.7A.4E applies, the firm should pay to the complainant a sum equal to the total commission paid by the complainant in respect of the payment protection contract minus 50% of the total amount paid by the
complainant in respect of the payment protection contract, plus historic interest where relevant on that sum (plus simple interest on the whole amount).

App
3.7A.4
E In cases where the presumption in DISP App 3.3A.4E(2) has been rebutted and the firm has concluded that the non-disclosure gave rise to an unfair relationship under section 140A of the CCA, the firm should consider what level of commission would not have given rise to unfairness in that case and pay to the complainant a sum equal to the total commission paid by the complainant in respect of the payment protection contract minus that level of commission, plus historic interest where relevant on that sum (plus simple interest on the whole amount).


................. https://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/docu...s-and-guidance

[robin-hood]

Re: Done all your PPI claims what now...... Read on

The main reason that claims companies want cases that have already been "done and worked" is that the banks previously would only refund a claim on the agreement number complained about. If you now resubmit claims after doing a proper DSAR first, many banks will admit that there were hidden accounts not previously disclosed - and refund these as well.
This has nothing to do with Plevin which is turning out to be very well suppressed by the banks and not viable via FOS. Only viable route for Plevin at the moment is court and that means Solicitors, costs and risk for clients - even in small claims which still has fees.

[charitynjw]

Re: Done all your PPI claims what now...... Read on

This has nothing to do with Plevin which is turning out to be very well suppressed by the banks and not viable via FOS. Only viable route for Plevin at the moment is court and that means Solicitors, costs and risk for clients - even in small claims which still has fees.

Can you verify this, please?