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

[EXC]

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

no fos are saying one of the reason the bba brought the matter to court, about a case being judged on on the principles, after close to 100,000 claims awarded , not 1 has been awarded compensation on the basis of the principles where the icob/icos has been correct

the fsa and fos just want to keep the flexability for exceptions


seems like the case the bba has brought on this point is really academic


smacks of mischief making me to, wonder if the courts will agree when 1 not one case has faced the dilemna that the bba want clearing up
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------



a delay and squeeze on claim numbers at worse, at best some form of damage limitation, seems like the whole case has been brought concerning isue 404 and the obligation to pay back clients compensation who have not yet complained, this seems to be why the bba brought the case , stopping this and anything extra will be a bonus

I don't think the FOS are saying that they've never upheld a case on principles alone (though they probably haven't) but rather that the BBA have failed to highlight a case whereby they have.

I would agree that the s404 part of the BBA's case is the main reason for them bringing the action - as it clearly would be the most costly element should they fail. But if the FSA lost that part of the case I'm convinced they'd apply for a s404 order. The decision not to use s404 that was made at a board meeting in July ''pending resolution of the new s404 power'' which was not in place at that time but now is.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/board-minutes/july_22.pdf

[Class Act]

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

I thought that a section 404 order could not be made on a breach of Principles? so if the FSA lose (ie on the priciples issue) the FSA could not force through the section 404.

Is this not the whole issue the BBA are raising?

[MBD23]

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

Ah perhaps yes I agree this is the very issue. Attack 404 directly , and if not succesfully, try and block 404 indirectly by blocking off the principles route.

to the point previously, yes those were the words from Fos in court. They have not upheld a single case where the ICOB & ICOBS were ok, but they failed on the principles.

[EXC]

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

I thought that a section 404 order could not be made on a breach of Principles? so if the FSA lose (ie on the priciples issue) the FSA could not force through the section 404.

Is this not the whole issue the BBA are raising?

An s404 order cannot apply to principles but regardless of the status of the principles the FSA still retain the powers to seek an s404 order under ICOB, ICOBS & general law.

[cappo]

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

great points guys thats what this forum is all about.:tinysmile_grin_t:

[debtisbad]

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

Absolutely! Let's all keep on the case. There have been a few incidents of argument on this forum recently, which do not really help anyone, but these recent posts are excellent and are what this forum should be about. Keep up the good work everyone!

[cappo]

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

Absolutely! Let's all keep on the case. There have been a few incidents of argument on this forum recently, which do not really help anyone, but these recent posts are excellent and are what this forum should be about. Keep up the good work everyone!

good points well made debtisbad it,s the banks that are the enemies in that if they wern,t crooks forums like this used:beagle: to discuss how best to get back what we,re rightfully due wouid,nt exist

[Chip Tuesday]

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

Glad to see everyone's back on track with the monitoring of the PPI judicial review.

CT

[Amethyst]

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

I think (dangerous I know) that this isn't just about the PPI and we should keep that in mind when thinking about the case. Remember there are many other misselling etc type things coming up, Packaged accounts and so on, and so the banks will want something definitive on whether they will be judged on those under FSA rules as was when things were sold, or the higher level FSA principles.

(which would explain why they are arguing it now even tho there havent actually been any decisions by FOS based on principles alone)

[EXC]

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

On reading the FSA's grounds for resistance prior to the hearing I was under the impression that it was the FSA's position that the principles reflected what was in ICOB & ICOBS but this is not the case.

They're actually attempting to use the principles (at least in part) to fill ''gaps'' in ICOB & ICOBS and cite an example - below. By any standards imaginable, selling a policy where the bank knows the customer would be ineligible to claim on cannot be considered fair & reasonable.

But even if the FSA lose the ability to rely on the use principles, the Ombudsman has absolute discretion to judge complaints by reference to ''what he considers to be fair and reasonable''. And as firms have an obligation to take account of the Ombudsman's decisions in their own complaints handling, I can't see how losing the use of the principles should make any material difference to how complaints should be judged.


MR BRINDLE: Our own position is that there are certain fact situations within PPI sales where the rules do not have application and where the principles must have an application; that is one of the points we have always made.

This point I think can be encapsulated by asking: What is their case on the three examples that we have given, where we say there are regulatory gaps if their argument is right, where there must be room for the principles to apply in this overall context.

Could I invite your Lordship to go back again -- I know your Lordship doesn't terribly like doing it, but I think it is probably the last time I will do it -- to Sinclair's witness statement. I think there is no substitute for it this time because it is the only place where it is set out clearly.

It is paragraph 154. This is where Miss Sinclair pointed out the three examples. The first is the best example and the most important; cases where the FSA has real concerns about the regulatory gaps that would open up if the argument against us is accepted. I make this against my point that I am uncertain as to whatt he field of exhaustion is.

Take the first example, which is the most striking. Your Lordship may have looked at this already. It is what I call the "widow" case: "No specific ICOB rule expressly prohibiting against the firm selling PPI policy on a non-advised basis to a customer that it knew was ineligible."

One could take the case of the widow in the example to which I referred earlier. The firm knew that the widow was ineligible because she was in receipt of benefits but nevertheless proceeded to sell her a policy under which she could not claim. The FSA would consider this very likely to be at least unfair and demonstrative of a failure in the firm's systems and controls and therefore in breach of Principles 3 and 6, and in addition, potentially demonstrating a lack of integrity under Principle 1.

Then we say the BBA would appear to say that such a case is beyond the scope of regulation.

[debtisbad]

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

I think (dangerous I know) that this isn't just about the PPI and we should keep that in mind when thinking about the case. Remember there are many other misselling etc type things coming up, Packaged accounts and so on, and so the banks will want something definitive on whether they will be judged on those under FSA rules as was when things were sold, or the higher level FSA principles.

(which would explain why they are arguing it now even tho there havent actually been any decisions by FOS based on principles alone)

Packaged accounts could well be the next mis-selling. It seems every time one thing is stopped e.g. endowment mis-selling, another scam is invented to take its place. A side issue of the PPI situation is that the banks could be deliberately dragging out the legalities, to get us all talking about PPI only, which is the case in this thread, whilst in the background pushing out other products such as packaged accounts, whilst our attention is diverted.

[leclerc]

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

Packaged account misselling is the next big thing but will leave that discussion to the other thread as I am going to add in some historic practices which were blatant miselling which may however prove almost impossible to prove. Banks are flogging packaged accounts like they are going out of fashion, and mostly they are not worth the money you pay for the "privilege" of having. Since they are sales related products then there is no consideration as to whether the whole package is beneficial to the customer(it is to the bank obviously).

[cappo]

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

Packaged accounts could well be the next mis-selling. It seems every time one thing is stopped e.g. endowment mis-selling, another scam is invented to take its place. A side issue of the PPI situation is that the banks could be deliberately dragging out the legalities, to get us all talking about PPI only, which is the case in this thread, whilst in the background pushing out other products such as packaged accounts, whilst our attention is diverted.

the easiest way and i know it probably sounds a bit stupid is if everyone voted with there feet and refused to go through the investment arm of the banks,namely insurances that wouid deny the banks a massive cash cow i think they,d soon get the message unfortunately it,s got to be countrywide and thats never going to happen,i don,t buy any insurance products from banks anymore i know i might be a hypocrite in that i have got a bank account but if i couid manage without one i wouid, theres a reason oap,s don,t trust banks now and only use cash,because they don,t trust them anymore,sorry got a bit off topic.

[pompeyfaith]

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

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wa...1466-28176900/

[debtisbad]

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

Have you considered one of the prepay debit/credit cards? They accept salary payments and you can use them online to pay bills. Or is there another problem there that we have not yet discussed?