Banks challenge new PPI rules

[di30]

Re: Banks challenge new PPI rules

Does anyone know anything about the Legal Ombudsman?

found this on another site earlier today....

http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/

(Sorry this is nothing to do with the subject on this thread)

Right just checked, but this is if your not happy with the lawyer/solicitor that may have been dealing with your matters.

[di30]

Re: Banks challenge new PPI rules

Right calling it a night folks, see ya tomorrow, night night.X

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Banks challenge new PPI rules

good nite Di tc xx

[nelliewops]

Re: Banks challenge new PPI rules

dont quote me on this nellie but i believe as yours has been upheld by an ombudsman and thus the JR does not apply to you as it was upheld on the current rules and not the ones to be implemented on the 1st december i see no reason why you cant

Thanks PF - I won't take it as gospel, but it does make sense, so hopefully you are right..........it would just be good to find something somewhere in black and white to back this up though
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

we must not let people think about continuing to claim, i read elsewhere and i agree entirely, if the banks refute every single claims while the JR is taking place, they will just end up paying tons of money for every case kicked to the FOS.

surely this will cost them more money in the long-term?

so we must continue...even more so than ever.

Well said NLP - the more we can cost the banks over this, the better!

[Angry Cat]

Re: Banks challenge new PPI rules

Does anyone know anything about the Legal Ombudsman?

found this on another site earlier today....

http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/

(Sorry this is nothing to do with the subject on this thread)

Right just checked, but this is if your not happy with the lawyer/solicitor that may have been dealing with your matters.

The legal ombudsman was set up in relation to complaints against solicitors.

[Amethyst]

Re: Banks challenge new PPI rules

Think the banks, in preparation for the judicial review, have been telling their call centre/cust services staff, incorrectly, that claims will be on hold from when it was announced (we know this is the case from the horses mouth) The FSA and FOS obviously have declined to give a general consent waiver, so the banks have to backtrack on that instruction to their staff, or let them carry on and claim its a misunderstanding if challenged (which of course they will be but to no effect till hundreds of peeps have given up at first hurdle RESULT!) .

[nelliewops]

Re: Banks challenge new PPI rules

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sou...scJ5yFkVimgEqw

I don't know if I have posted the above link ok.

In relation to binding decisions made by the ombudsman etc.

Gosh, thank you so much for this Di - and apologies for the comment about needing something in black and white in my last post, as I hadn't noticed it then.......dozy thing that I am

Have now printed off a copy and will peruse thoroughly, although I've already noticed it refers to seeking legal advice in such cases where a FOS decision has to be enforced through the courts so looks like OH and I will have to contact our solicitor to see what (if anything) he can advise.............

Many thanks again,

Nellie xxx

[marshallka]

Re: Banks challenge new PPI rules

I may as well get them done with.

My reasons are, it was a joint loan, hubby first account holder, they told him he must take the ppi to be accepted for the loans, yet when he tried making a reclaim they would not pay out, long story, but going to give it a go anyway.

I must admit back then, we were very laid back on this LOL.

Cheers folks.

I thought you had got these in Di?

As regards "when" to put them in - what would you tell others to do?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Think the banks, in preparation for the judicial review, have been telling their call centre/cust services staff, incorrectly, that claims will be on hold from when it was announced (we know this is the case from the horses mouth) The FSA and FOS obviously have declined to give a general consent waiver, so the banks have to backtrack on that instruction to their staff, or let them carry on and claim its a misunderstanding if challenged (which of course they will be but to no effect till hundreds of peeps have given up at first hurdle RESULT!) .

This would then make any rule that the regulators make "challengeable" (which I guess they are) but there are ways and means of doing this and this is not the proper way. The FSA have told the banks (and FOS has it on their website) to carry on complaints as normal whilst the review is being dealt with.

Its like someone taking it into their own hands and putting an account into dispute. This can only be done legally.

[di30]

Re: Banks challenge new PPI rules

Hi Marshallka

Nope not these 2 yet unfortunately, what is was these documents were not sent within the SAR when hubby done one earlier in the year and they not so long sent them separately, I was told I had write to the branch and the branch wrote back and said the agreements would be sent from another dept, even though I had the account numbers on the statements, wish I just did carry on earlier with them now, without waiting for the agreements.

Some of the other agreements were enclosed within the SAR, normally I would be requesting for them separately anyway.

I would tell others to just carry on as long as they knew they had the ppi, i wanted to double check on my agreements, and found that ppi was added anyway, but with having so many lol.

[Amethyst]

Re: Banks challenge new PPI rules

Just to confirm, No firm has any waiver granted against it for DISP on PPI (or DISP on anything as it happens).

The last waivers granted to the biggies (lloyds etc) were in December 2009 something to do with liquidity reporting (blah lol)


p.s DISP is complaints handling regs.

Concerning the proposed complaint handling guidance, we consider that a firm that
has always sold PPI fairly, and/or handled PPI complaints fairly and consistently
according to its existing obligations under DISP, will feel little impact or additional
burden from our guidance, since the firm will typically tend to have relatively few
PPI complaints and/or need to make relatively little adjustment to its PPI complaint
handling approach. Therefore, notwithstanding the general application of the
proposed Handbook guidance, we do not agree that it can reasonably be considered
likely to have a disproportionate impact on ‘good’ firms.
Concerning the proposed rejected complaint review rule, and as we certainly bore in
mind at the time we took our decision to propose it, we would remain open to an
individual firm making a case that such a review would be unduly burdensome for
it, or not serve the intended purpose in its case, such that the rule should be waived
in its case, provided such waiver would not cause consumer detriment (see s178 of
FSMA). This might be, for example where the firm could prove that it does not have
a problem with PPI complaint handling, or that any such problem has already been
identified and adequately remedied by it.
So we remain of the view that, in principle, proposed guidance on fair PPI complaint
handling that applies to all firms, and a potential formal requirement upon all firms
to review rejected PPI complaints, are appropriate responses.
Concerning complaints about PPI sales made before January 2005, we see no reason
to carve these out from the scope of our proposed complaint handling guidance.
This is because for nearly all banks and insurers, and for a majority of general
insurance intermediaries, the existing DISP requirements for handling complaints
already apply to new complaints about such pre-January 2005 sales. (We are not
proposing any change to the definition of a complaint within the Handbook, or to
which complaints are covered by DISP.) We have no cause to think that complaints
about these earlier sales have been handled any better than those about later sales,
and our open letter sets out our view that firms should have regard to the list of
failings when considering complaints about pre-January 2005 sales. So it is entirely
appropriate in the context of our rationale and concerns about poor PPI complaint
handling that our proposed guidance on DISP does not carve out such complaints.

[di30]

Re: Banks challenge new PPI rules

Thanks for confirming this Amethyst.

And this was confirmed from the FSA I take it?

[Amethyst]

Re: Banks challenge new PPI rules

FSA - any waivers applied for by banks complaints handling due to the ppi judicial review ?

They're a bit busy once you get through the press 1 for this press 2 for that etc.

nice music tho lol

Definately nothing from their end.

But it might be the FOS so ringing them now.

ewww natalie is patronising on their hold message.

and very depressing music !

8 weeks, they are dealing with cases as normal and cases should be dealt with by the banks within 8 weeks still.

[di30]

Re: Banks challenge new PPI rules

Great Amethyst, thanks for checking on this. My hubby did also leave an email to his adjudicator, he sent this last night, as he has an ongoing case with them.

Wonder why some peeps have said their banks have told them otherwise?

[Amethyst]

Re: Banks challenge new PPI rules

Cust services staff were instructed Friday afternoon before the announcement that PPI claims were on hold (source: cust service rep at Lloyds)

This could have been a mistake (Lloyds honestly thought the fsa were going to grant a waiver) or purposeful misinformation... it should be corrected today anyhow (if anyone with a ppi claim fancies ringing up a bank and asking them if complaints are on hold or not we'd be grateful)

But its obviously beneficial for the banks if cust services staff have the wrong end of the stick and tell custs that ppi complaints are on hold as many wont check and will just forget the claim.

have put a sticky up confirming the situation and asking for people who have been told complaints are on hold.

[marshallka]

Re: Banks challenge new PPI rules

Di, have you made your complaints yet to Lloyds or are you on about the Ombudsman? Others are posting now that LLoyds are (up to yet that is) dealing with complaints as normal so maybe time to get them in if you feel they were missold to you. Can't believe you have not dealt with these as yet TBH when you are helping with others and their complaints and telling them to get theirs in lol.