Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

[Angry Cat]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Good Law Firms, are exempt from my view, re: complicated PPI cases.

[MBD23]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

depends upon what you define as connection

I invest money in businesses that cannot get funding from typical avenues.

CMCs, Foreign Exchange, A franchise of Subway, Web Design.....

I seek a return on my money, so it pays for me to understand what the most likely outcome of a sector in the short-mid term is.

CMCs in the PPI sector are going to become moribund... sorry to upset the CMC owners on here... but as i mentioned to MD23 on PM... I have mitigated my downside risk by being aware of the intentions of the system vis-a-vis PPI/JR

Hopefully others with a large commerical interest will do likewise.

Thanks and good luck.

we dont know they will become moribund as this depends on the decision and noone can claim to know, they can claim to have a good idea of what they think will happen

and in terms of mitigating downside , apart from reducign advertising and cutting staff costs, cutting everything to the bone untilt he decision has been made, theres not much more anyone can do, and I doubt any cmc will have failed to realise this , as if they havent their cash flow position will make it very obvious to them

And i suppose the only benefit of having an inkling the JR was coming before it actually would have been announced in my opinion would have been to ramp up advertising in advance off and make sure all claims were submitted as quickly as possible, maybe reducing some costs.

Im not so sure knowing in advance would have been such a massive advantage apart from the obvious, the guys who spent 200K in November advertising are proobabyl struggling to get it all back with their high staff overheads
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
yes claims going down the litigation route £5000+ are currently unaffected

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

"poor consumer" should pay their bills and meet their obligations.

That very much depends what debts the"poor" consumer has lets not forget that priority debts come first before credit cards and unsecured loans.

[MBD23]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Amii slams FSCS levy

• Story by: Donia O'Loughlin
• Magazine: FTAdviser
• Published Thursday , February 10, 2011

The Association of Medical Insurance Intermediaries (Amii) has condemned the proposed Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) levy as unfair, excessive and totally inappropriate.
Advertising
<SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N1714.FTAdviser.com/B5184252.2;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;ord=[timestamp]?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N1714.FTAdviser.com/B5184252.2;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;ord=[timestamp]?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N1714.FTAdviser.com/B5184252.2;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;ord=[timestamp]?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT> AdvId: 2782016 AdId: 235578799 CrId: 40310649
The FSCS has proposed a 57 per cent increase in this year's levy to its members.
Andrew Tripp, chairman at Amii, claimed the increase is on top of a massive eight-fold increase last year and is mainly a result of compensation payments for payment protection insurance (PPI) misselling.
He said :"As almost all Amii members never sold any of these policies, it is unfair that they are footing the bill on an equal basis.
"This huge increase has come out of the blue totally and will have a serious impact on many intermediaries."
Amii believes the Financial Services Authority (FSA) should review and address the funding of the FSCS immediately and not leave it for another year as has been suggested because the financial damage to smaller intermediaries could have a serious impact on growth and jobs.
Mr Tripp said: "The substantial rises in regulatory costs over the last two years could cause some intermediaries to leave this market altogether, reducing consumers and businesses access to independent specialist advice on private medical insurance."
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

That very much depends what debts the"poor" consumer has lets not forget that priority debts come first before credit cards and unsecured loans.
[/color][/left]

lets not forget they enteretd into a legal agreement with a company , who worked on their behalf, won them money, and would simply like paying as per the agreement the client enterted into that they sainge dup to say they have read, agreed and understood.

we talk about banks and lenders meeting their legal obligations, the consumer should do likewise, 50% bad debt fiigures in the ppi business are a disgrace , especially when a company has worked honourably for them, charged them no up front fees 9 like the £20million cartel scams out there et al) and simply want paying so they can pay their staff bills and overheads etc

off course this only happens as the banks and lenders decided they were above the law and dont need toobey legal document form of authoritys where the client has instructed the lender to send the money to the CMC. Oh no the banks dont need to comply with legal instructions do they!!

[Angry Cat]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

[quote] by MBD23:
...surely everyone agrees the "poor consumer" should pay their bills and meet their obligations.[quote]

Obligations?

Some consumers who were mis-sold PPI, are left with debts that amount to just PPI premiums and the interest applied to same.

Would you meet a bill and feel obligated to pay same, if you bought a 'faulty' product that failed?

I think, NOT!

To clarify, my comment was directed at the PPI provider.

[MBD23]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

they havent, they have instructed a company to recover compensation for them, that company have won and require paying for their services. Nothing faulty about that

would i pay a bill where a company had won me money where i havent paid a penny and they had worked on my behalf in good faith , and i had enterted into a contract saying upon a successful result I would pay them.

Yes I would

[Angry Cat]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

they havent, they have instructed a company to recover compensation for them, that company have won and require paying for their services. Nothing faulty about that

would i pay a bill where a company had won me money where i havent paid a penny and they had worked on my behalf in good faith , and i had enterted into a contract saying upon a successful result I would pay them.

Yes I would

Seems as though, we are at cross purposes.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

MBD,

I understand what you are saying and in many ways I agree, but tell me when you take on these claims do you make it a point in finding out if the consumer is in debt as a direct result of the money you are claiming back ?

And if you do what is your stance on this

[MBD23]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

MBD,

I understand what you are saying and in many ways I agree, but tell me when you take on these claims do you make it a point in finding out if the consumer is in debt as a direct result of the money you are claiming back ?

And if you do what is your stance on this

the consumer is in debt as a direct result of the money you are claiming back??

the client would never be in debt as a result of us claiming them money back, they would always benefit as our charge to them is based upon the benefit we provide to them

[Angry Cat]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

they havent, they have instructed a company to recover compensation for them, that company have won and require paying for their services. Nothing faulty about that

would i pay a bill where a company had won me money where i havent paid a penny and they had worked on my behalf in good faith , and i had enterted into a contract saying upon a successful result I would pay them.

Yes I would

My comment was directed at the PPI provider!!!

I am not a CMC Basher; just a Basher of the BAD CMC's...

[MBD23]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

My comment was directed at the PPI provider!!!

I am not a CMC Basher; just a Basher of the BAD CMC's...

Yeah

I am not a Client Basher; just a Basher of the BAD Clients

[Angry Cat]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Yeah

I am not a Client Basher; just a Basher of the BAD Clients

Well, some cmc's, may, perhaps, give the wrong message to the PPI client...

Always, preferring myself and only if necessary, to obtain advice from a legal firm.

But of course, Legal Beagles is always here to help consumers if, they cannot afford to obtain counsels opinion.

[cappo]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

the government need the banks to sell their debt
fsa and fos are funded by the banks
25% of the government tax receipts are from the banks
london property & employment propped up by the banks

what chance have we got!?

good point

[leclerc]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Interesting... i see there are many real sharpies on...

you say you recieved an email from the CSC.... only member firms get emails.
NLP, you misread my post again. I said that the text size of the post which was queried by Chip Tuesday was the same as an email. I've posted up emails on the forum before and the size of the text is the same, albeit I've also changed the text size so that it is easier to read.
so... which firm are you connected to?
As you will see from the response, I do work for, I have never worked for, I do not intend to work for nor do I know anyone personally who works for a CMC.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------


None... but i fund about 5 of them.

See above.

[leclerc]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

we dont know they will become moribund as this depends on the decision and noone can claim to know, they can claim to have a good idea of what they think will happen

and in terms of mitigating downside , apart from reducign advertising and cutting staff costs, cutting everything to the bone untilt he decision has been made, theres not much more anyone can do, and I doubt any cmc will have failed to realise this , as if they havent their cash flow position will make it very obvious to them
Not all CMC's have cut advertising costs, there are two well known companies who advertise both on Sky News and Sky Sports News and another on the ITV2 during the daytime under the banner of "important announcement". Have you not looked at diversifying the areas of business you deal with rather or moving more towards Credit Card reclaiming, albeit it may well be less profitable?
And i suppose the only benefit of having an inkling the JR was coming before it actually would have been announced in my opinion would have been to ramp up advertising in advance off and make sure all claims were submitted as quickly as possible, maybe reducing some costs.

Im not so sure knowing in advance would have been such a massive advantage apart from the obvious, the guys who spent 200K in November advertising are proobabyl struggling to get it all back with their high staff overheads
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
yes claims going down the litigation route £5000+ are currently unaffected

Do you litigate or is litigation, even now, also problematic due to the JR?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

they havent, they have instructed a company to recover compensation for them, that company have won and require paying for their services. Nothing faulty about that

would i pay a bill where a company had won me money where i havent paid a penny and they had worked on my behalf in good faith , and i had enterted into a contract saying upon a successful result I would pay them.

Yes I would

MBD, on the internet forums and some of us have been around them for a long time(no life etc,etc, ). and a lot of times we hear of bad CMC's ie take an upfront fee and do absolutely nothing. I don't think any of us here are saying that if the work is done that they should renege from paying. However, you may know industry figures on this, roughly what percentage of people gain back money via a CMC and then choose not to pay for the service they have received? Does this involve further litigation against the client to recover the contractually obliged amount?