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

[leclerc]

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

BBC - Peston's Picks: The big PPI lesson for banks

Peston blog

[Dukeydogg]

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

As PF has said, DD, you appear to have found a half-decent CMC. Well done, you.

Maybe we can start the list with them...

EDIT - Just read Roffster's post. Maybe another candidate, even...!!!

Thank You! Maybe i should see how things progress before i start recommending them!

Dukeydogg,
For the record, all CMC's are regulated by the Ministery of Justice. If not they are acting illegally.
Good luck with your claim.

Thanks!!

Dukey

Get on to your CMC today (by writing only) and find out what they are doing for you?

They have the green light so they should be able to get your claim processed quickly.

I am not trying to scare you or anyone else, you are already committed to a CMC and you cannot change this, but anyone now coming along now that wants to make a claim do not have to use a CMC.

I emailed them about 6 months ago and still not had a response Lol!! I've found that they are the sort of company who dont answer the phone - just pick up messages or dont reply to emails. BUT when you do catch someone, they are very forthcoming and helpfull. He even gave me his mobile number so i could call him direct for updates. Not sure if its a one man band or something bigger!

[tatty27]

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

Hi,

Firstly I must say what a great thread this has been. I have been lurking for several months reading this thread as it has been the best way to find out what was going on so for that I must say thank you.

However, I have finally registered because I feel I have to add my 10p worth to the discussion about using CMCs.

I started trying to get my money back from RBS 2 years ago and at every step I took I was lied to in an attempt to stop me from claiming. I rather foolishly didn't have the account numbers for some of the affected accounts as they were paid off and I didn't think I'd need them any more.

When I called Natwest to ask for account numbers I was told I'd have to go into a branch to get the details. At the branch I was told I'd have to call customer services. I went home and tried to call but was told I'd have to call another number which was non existent. When I finally did get through to the right people I was told that they couldn't give me the information I wanted because they don't keep account details for accounts that are closed. I knew this was a lie and after getting passed from pillar to post and being treated like an idiot I felt I had no option than to enlist the help of someone who knew what my rights were and what to ask for, that's why I used a CMC.

Even when I had a solicitor acting on my behalf they still messed me about. They told us I had to pay £10 for my account details, which I did and 6 weeks later they sent just about every bit of paper they could find my name on except the loan agreements. When we confronted them about this RBS said we hadn't asked specifiacally for that and I'd have to pay again and we waited another 6 weeks for the rest which was still missing information. Forunately my solicitor felt he had enough information to pursue all 5 of my claims.

Finally, after two years, RBS paid out on two of them on Christmas eve last year, the other three had been put on hold pending the court case for reasons they could'nt give me.

This is why people use CMC's, not because they are too lazy to do it themselves, but because the banks hope that messing people around they will eventually give up. I have to admit that if I hadn't had the help I did I would have given up. Fortunately my CMC wasn't too bad, wanting 20% of the final result which, incedently is in the thousands.

Laslt, I just thought I'd let you know I have just spoken to RBS and they have told me that claims are still on hold until they have decided what they are going to do. They will write to me (one day) to let me know. In the meantime RBS have not paid me any interest on the money they owe me even though I paid interest on it as it was added to my loan at the beginning which I think is disgusting.

[Garlok]

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

Hello roffster,

I hear what you say, however I don't think that all of this is "CMC bashing". The so called industry of CMCs has given itself a bad name. Take a good look around this WHOLE forum alone and look at the companies that have NOT done the right or proper thing by their clients DESPITE being authorised by the Ministry of Justice. Far from being the regulator and arbiter in these matters as you have implied, they will tell a comlainant to go to Trading Standards or the OFT they will not deal directly with complaints made to them about CMCs by the general public. All you have to do is read all of it not just the bits that suit.

On here at the moment how about DMS, Centro et al alone, how about more seriously the scandal and debacle of Cartel Client Review etc etc. which contributed to the undermining of very important judgments made in the Carey v HSBC cases?

Very sorry if you are offended but I think these forums are about shared experiences and the solutions we have all used and found, it is a broad church and shoudl be used and treated as such.

In fact a proper approach to a specialist lawyer will reveal lower fees, more authority on the subject, ( they are actually officers of the court by definition) and very serious regulation from more than one quarter should they not do their job properly. This includes BEST ADVICE on an individual's case not what is best for the company coffers and also includes in more complex issues of NOT engaging a CMC to act for you who WILL require in thoise complex issues properly qualified legal professionals as the CMC alone is nOT allowed to represent anyone in a court of law.

And that is where we came in.

regards
Garlok.

[cappo]

Re: Latest updates on PPI No Appeal more to follow soon

Lets not forget Mr Justice Ouseley he made it happen with a cracking Judgment so a big THANK YOU TO HIM as justice prevailed.

duncan ouesley thats a name we,ll remember for a long time,a decent honourable man i,d take my hat off to you sir but nattie and ac have eaten it lol

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

Dukey

Get on to your CMC today (by writing only) and find out what they are doing for you?

They have the green light so they should be able to get your claim processed quickly.

I am not trying to scare you or anyone else, you are already committed to a CMC and you cannot change this, but anyone now coming along now that wants to make a claim do not have to use a CMC.

I have to say that i am not lazy, nor lacking in brain power, but for a humble office worker, dealing with claims, redress and national banks can be a daunting prospect.

If i had found this website before putting my claim into a CMC then perhaps i wouldnt have. However, i did..........and now thats the route i have no alternative but to go down. The CMC are regulated by the MOJ and are charging me 10% (no win, no fee). Which from my initial research isnt too bad.

So please stop scaring people (i.e. me)!! Im nervous enough already!!! :behindsofa:

[roffster]

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

Dukeydogg,
For the record, all CMC's are regulated by the Ministery of Justice. If not they are acting illegally.
Good luck with your claim.

[charitynjw]

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

Never a truer word, Eric!!

Government leads crackdown on debt loophole swindlers


By Dan Atkinson

Last updated at 10:54 PM on 30th May 2009

• Comments (0)
• Add to My Stories
• Share

Law enforcement agencies and Government officials are this weekend launching a crackdown on unscrupulous operators who have misled tens of thousands of consumers into believing they can walk away from their debts.
People struggling to pay off their liabilities are being fooled into thinking they can exploit a legal loophole to wipe the slate clean.

But after handing over £1,500 in fees to pursue a case through the county courts, the vast majority learn that they have not got a case and their legal action is dismissed.

Meeting: The FSA held a summit over the issue of unenforceable debt

Mounting concern has followed the rapid growth during the past year of an industry in which some claims managers suggest to those in financial difficulties that because of badly worded credit contracts their debts are likely to be unenforceable in law.

The manager takes a fee of up to £500 for his part in trying to annul the debts. The debtor must pay a further £1,000 or so to a solicitor, who in many cases then hands back hundreds of pounds to the manager as a 'referral fee'.


More...

• One in five students fear insolvency (thisismoney.co.uk)
• Take Thisismoney's debt test (thisismoney.co.uk)

In some cases the wording of contracts falls foul of the law, but it is thought that the great majority of credit agreements are upheld by the courts.

It is believed that the courts face having to deal with 100,000 cases. The fees - worth £150million in total - are not refundable in most cases.

Police, the Financial Services Authority and the Ministry of Justice held a summit on these 'unenforceable consumer credit agreements' at FSA headquarters in London on Friday.

The meeting came as the spotlight swung from the 'claims management industry', which brings in the business, to the solicitors who take the cases to court.

Up to 12 law firms are thought to be under investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, with more likely to follow.

There have even been allegations that some claims have been auctioned among solicitors.

The civil courts have been swamped by the cases - usually relating to credit card debt.

The pressure that these actions has put on the courts has led at least one judge to freeze further hearings until the commercial court in London can lay down a legal precedent. And the banks are furious at having to devote expensive manpower to digging out old contracts that are the subject of dispute.

'There is a very significant workload,' said a banking source. 'You may have to go back decades to find an agreement form and all because of claims that are usually spurious.'

Eric Leenders, executive director of the British Bankers' Association, said: 'The law is not intended to provide loopholes' Geoffrey Negus, of the SRA, said: 'Our advice to anyone with debt problems is to visit Citizens Advice, which is free, or go to your solicitor.'

Claims management firms deal with claims relating to injury, housing disrepair, employment, injuries and financial products.Most are entirely reputable.

[leclerc]

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

Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)
09/05/11

Why the BBA brought a judicial review

What is PPI?

PPI is an insurance product which covers the risk of a borrower being unable to repay their borrowing.

It typically covers accident, sickness, unemployment and death, but the detailed terms and conditions of different policies will vary. It is usually paid for either as a single up front premium (usually added to the amount of the underlying loan provided) or by separate monthly instalments.

Until recently, banks offered to arrange PPI for customers alongside their credit applications.

"What was the case about?

The BBA has asked for a judicial review of the FSA policy statement on PPI complaints and guidance published by the Financial Ombudsman Service.

This judicial review is about the ability of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to apply new standards to old sales; it is not simply about PPI.

The FSA's policy statement and open letter to the industry advised that banks should consider complaints about PPI in two ways. First, by reference to the detailed conduct of business rules which applied at the time the sale was made. And second, according to standards that are based on the FSA’s guiding principles for doing business. The BBA has applied to the Courts for a judicial review of (i) the FSA’s approach contained in its policy statement, and (ii) the Financial Ombudsman Service’s approach to PPI sales complaints contained in its guidance.

Whilst the UK banking industry has to date implemented every reform on PPI sales and complaints handling required by the regulators, we believe (and continue to believe) that the FSA is effectively creating a precedent which permits it to apply new rules to previous sales – even where those sales were regulated by other FSA rules.
Translation: the court made the wrong decision and we are happy in spite of giving up to state that we were right.
Therefore this ruling might not only affect customers who have bought PPI, but might also set a precedent that could affect all products regulated by the FSA.

The judicial review was heard in the High Court during the week of Monday 24th January 2011.

The judgement was handed down on 20 April 2011 and found in favour of FSA and the FOS. The BBA was given until 10 May 2011 to appeal.

In the interest of providing certainty for their customers, the banks and the BBA decided that they did not intend to appeal."

Utter hogwash from the BBA

[nelliewops]

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

Sorry guys only just heard the fantastic news - so PF and Di were right with their hunches after all and no hat-eating will now be required

Wishing everyone a prompt resolution to their complaints!!!

[leclerc]

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

BBA - The voice of banking and financial services - Media - Article - Ppi Factsheet

BBA updated page.

[Bill-K]

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

The CMC are regulated by the MOJ and are charging me 10% (no win, no fee). Which from my initial research isnt too bad.

As PF has said, DD, you appear to have found a half-decent CMC. Well done, you.

Maybe we can start the list with them...

EDIT - Just read Roffster's post. Maybe another candidate, even...!!!

[roffster]

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

It's good to see that normal service is resumed and now that the banks have rolled over everyone can get back to a good old fashioned piece of CMC bashing!
There is a lot of really good advice and information on this forum (as long as you are prepared to sift through some of the ill-informed comments that inevitably find their way into the posts).
As a CMC, I take great pride in making every effort to ensure that every client gets a positive result and that they get everything that is due to them plus additional interest.
My fees are only payable once the client gets a positive outcome and in most cases the additional interest we can get back for them covers the majority of our fee. Our clients are happy to pay us because in many cases we have got them back thousands of pounds that they thought they would never see again.
There are a small minority of people who, like most posters on this forum would pursue the banks on their own and get their money back (I have seen many posts from some of them who have not even got all their money back never mind additional interest).
The vast majority of consumers will not do this because they can't be bothered. Many of my clients don't have 'time' to find a statement and certainly would not complete a 7 page questionaire, this doesn't mean they don't have a valid complaint. The banks know this and this is why they are encouraging people not to use CMC's. Their figures are based on a 20% conversion figure meaning that even if they contact individuals (as Santander did) the vast majority will not bother to respond.
Are the posters on this forum advocating that the banks are allowed to get away with refunding only a small part of the money due as they surely will if they are allowed to play the statistics.
We have managed to get money back for many Alliance and Leicester customers in the past 6 months. How is that possible? Santander contacted their clients to establish if they thought they had been mis-sold so surely they had paid everyone back? Of course not! They had done what was necessary under their agreement and have managed to avoid paying anywhere near what they owe to their customers. Their letter to clients was 'constructed' in such a way that clients would believe that they had not been mis-sold PPI even when they clearly had.
There is room for good hard working CMC's and what we should be clear about is that the banks are the common enemy here and we want to get as many genuine mis-selling cases paid as possible and not let them get away with anything.
1. Don't pay any upfront fees. (Any decent CMC will only work on a success fee)
2. Ensure you only have to pay once you have won your case and if the case is not a good one then you pay nothing.
3. talk to your CMC before engaging with them and get a feel for their understanding of the case before progressing.
4. Don't let the banks get away with only paying back a small part of what they owe through consumer naivety.

If you feel that you are able to go to the effort required to make a good claim then that is fine. For everyone else, we can help.
Stop tarring the honest, hard working CMC's with the same brush as some of the bigger indiscriminate operatives out there.
Rant over, now let's enjoy the good news!

[Footynut]

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

I have had two payouts from Lloyds last year. Does this mean my complaint will get re looked at and possibly i will receive more money as a result of the FSA's new rules??

[pompeyfaith]

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

Dukeydogg,

Appologies if we did scare you that is not are aim, you did well in finding a cmc with a low fee that does not charge upfront so well done there, but unfortunetly that is not always the case for many as im sure you understand.

It is those we must spread the word too.

Good luck with your claim.