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

[millymollymoo]

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

The danger of ill advised Litigation:

"Mr Best’s evidence was “very vague about the interview he had with Mr Waller. His answers were often contradicted by written documents he had been given or sent”;"
http://www.lexology.com/library/deta...5-1055cc3bab2d

It seems that where the claimants evidence is less than watertight the courts tend to rely on the defendant firms procedures, in other words the onus lies on the claimant to demonstrate procedures were not followed rather than on the defendant to proove that they were. Poor quality claimant evidence ssems to be a recurring theme throughout current cases against Black Horse,

Theres a lot of these cases getting much further than they should be based on current case law, not that the legal teams mind, no doubt they have the benefit of ATE cover in place. That doesnt however help the poor souls who follow advice from CAG and issue themselves.

I agree totally too late now though

I guess though its a bit different though as the ageement shows it crossed out, Still wouldn't of done it after everything I have learn't on here:tinysmile_cry_t:
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

But if you argue in court then you have got to argue that a rogue employee made the sale(arguing that you would have to know that the employee was sacked for misselling---difficult to find out, and that he clearly failed to follow procedure---the bank would have paid up prior to going to court if they felt that was the case).

tell me about it

[Paul210]

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

Mr Justice: "so Mr Bank you genuinely and honestly completed this DAN document"

A random bank "Oh yes M'lud, honest and everything"

Mr Justice"I believe your statement completely and utterly, even though you believe over £7,000 (inc interest) is a completely reasonable premium for insurance on a £15,000 loan and quite obviously have no gain to make from lying through your teeth, I therefore find in your favour"

Completely fair, what a fantastic result!

The danger of ill advised Litigation:

"Mr Best’s evidence was “very vague about the interview he had with Mr Waller. His answers were often contradicted by written documents he had been given or sent”;"
http://www.lexology.com/library/deta...5-1055cc3bab2d

It seems that where the claimants evidence is less than watertight the courts tend to rely on the defendant firms procedures, in other words the onus lies on the claimant to demonstrate procedures were not followed rather than on the defendant to proove that they were. Poor quality claimant evidence ssems to be a recurring theme throughout current cases against Black Horse,

Theres a lot of these cases getting much further than they should be based on current case law, not that the legal teams mind, no doubt they have the benefit of ATE cover in place. That doesnt however help the poor souls who follow advice from CAG and issue themselves.

[leclerc]

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

But if you argue in court then you have got to argue that a rogue employee made the sale(arguing that you would have to know that the employee was sacked for misselling---difficult to find out, and that he clearly failed to follow procedure---the bank would have paid up prior to going to court if they felt that was the case).

[ncf355]

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

Mr Justice: "so Mr Bank you genuinely and honestly completed this DAN document"

A random bank "Oh yes M'lud, honest and everything"

Mr Justice"I believe your statement completely and utterly, even though you believe over £7,000 (inc interest) is a completely reasonable premium for insurance on a £15,000 loan and quite obviously have no gain to make from lying through your teeth, I therefore find in your favour"

Completely fair, what a fantastic result!

[EXC]

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

Another day another PPI litigant (and his barrister) loses in court.

[EXC]

Re: Blackhorse won't cancel my PPI?

No it wasn't a mortgage, just a regular loan. When I queried the PPI with them some time ago they said that the premium was paid up front with basically my first 18 months worth of my repayments going to the insurance? Basically I have paid for the insurance with the first year and a halfs repayments so in my mind I should eb able to stop the massive monthly PPI payment part of my loan. I don't understand how they can keep on charging for a service I don't want when I have a claim in to recoup my PPI. Logic would dictate they are better off stopping the payments from the cancelation point as they are only going to have to repay it anyway if the claim is upheld plus interest.

Disregarding what they said about which element of the first 18 months of payments went towards (ie loan repayment or PPI cover) it is not untypical for single premium PPI policies to only cover you for, say, the first two years of a five year loan and so it could be that although the policy has expired you are still paying for the money you borrowed to pay for it and explains why they think you still need to pay.

I think you need to find out if the policy is still live. If it is there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to cancel it.

[leclerc]

Re: Blackhorse won't cancel my PPI?

No it wasn't a mortgage, just a regular loan. When I queried the PPI with them some time ago they said that the premium was paid up front with basically my first 18 months worth of my repayments going to the insurance? Basically I have paid for the insurance with the first year and a halfs repayments so in my mind I should eb able to stop the massive monthly PPI payment part of my loan. I don't understand how they can keep on charging for a service I don't want when I have a claim in to recoup my PPI. Logic would dictate they are better off stopping the payments from the cancelation point as they are only going to have to repay it anyway if the claim is upheld plus interest.

Have they said this verbally or have they put it in writing?

If they have simply verbally told you then ask them to put it in writing(you might want to add, "so my solicitor can look at the reasons"). You might find that the compulsory non cancellable PPI suddenly will come to an end

[kitchenart]

Re: Blackhorse won't cancel my PPI?

Is the PPI for a mortgage?

Is it single premium PPI ie was it added to a loan in one lump some to be paid as part of the loan?

No it wasn't a mortgage, just a regular loan. When I queried the PPI with them some time ago they said that the premium was paid up front with basically my first 18 months worth of my repayments going to the insurance? Basically I have paid for the insurance with the first year and a halfs repayments so in my mind I should eb able to stop the massive monthly PPI payment part of my loan. I don't understand how they can keep on charging for a service I don't want when I have a claim in to recoup my PPI. Logic would dictate they are better off stopping the payments from the cancelation point as they are only going to have to repay it anyway if the claim is upheld plus interest.

[millymollymoo]

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

IMPORTANT I actually sent the draft POC to Bill, that was not the one that was used. Ignore that one please.

I will send Bill the correct one (however it still includes the points about the principles )

[millymollymoo]

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

I'll see if we can arrange a private thread for you.

Thank you very much , this would be very much appreciated

[EXC]

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

[quote=millymollymoo;238018
I have asked Bill to pass this info on in desperation and would very much appreciate some help if its not too late to do something about it. I haven;t started a thread as I am concerned of snooping by them It is under 5K.

Milly[/quote]

I'll see if we can arrange a private thread for you.

[millymollymoo]

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

I've just read a POC a CAG member is using in a PPI claim against Capital 1. It is so bad that I do find it quite distressing that CAG could allow one of the members it is advising to use it.

Not only will the claim necessarily fail due to it being time barred but the claimant is relying on, amongst other things, the Banking Code (which doesn't exist anymore and didn't cover the sale of insurance anyway) and all but one of the FSA's Principles which the claimant mistakenly contends are ''legally binding'' but in fact aren't actionable in court at all.

The claim may well be over the £5k limit for small claims and therefore the claimant risks being liable for costs.

It's a shame I'm banned and that I couldn't point this out to the poor girl as the POC in it's current form is self-written a death warrant.

Missold PPI Capital One - Page 2

Hello all been busy with a PPI claim that I stupidly thought I could handle myself.

I think I will be in trouble too with my O/H's claim that is in in court as included this along with my own events (main crux)in my own POC against GE Capital/Santander. Oh dear I've received their defence that goes on about this very matter as you have said here. Makes sense now ( Big trouble predicted . I need help desperately please I wish I had looked here first

I have asked Bill to pass this info on in desperation and would very much appreciate some help if its not too late to do something about it. I haven;t started a thread as I am concerned of snooping by them It is under 5K.

Milly

[Bill-K]

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

Judgments Act 1838-
An Act . . for extending the Remedies of Creditors against the Property of Debtors

Sheriff empowered to seize money, bank notes, &c.; and to pay money or bank notes to execution creditor; and to sue for amount secured by bills of exchange and other securities. Proviso as to indemnity for sheriff.

WOW - nifty stuff, AC. I just need to get it translated from the original Shakespearian and Latin 'Patois' !!!

...and I need a spoon...!!!

[EXC]

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

Lloyds former CEO is having his bonus witheld over the hit that they took from PPI misselling......breaking news on Sky News at the moment.

The partly-state-owned Lloyds Banking Group is attempting to withhold as much as half of the £1.45m bonus awarded this year to Eric Daniels, its former chief executive, I can exclusively reveal.

Lawyers acting for Lloyds’ remuneration committee are understood to have informed Daniels and other senior executives last week of the bank’s intention to ‘claw back’ parts of the bonuses announced in February this year.

The decision by Lloyds’ boardroom pay committee has been triggered by the £3.2bn hit that the bank took earlier this year for mis-selling payment protection insurance (PPI), the latest in a series of scandals to hit Britain’s banking sector.

The loss was larger than the City had anticipated and was one of the first significant announcements by Lloyds under Daniels’ successor as chief executive, Antonio Horta-Osorio.

It is understood to be the first time that a high street bank has attempted to invoke a clawback provision in the contract of a main board executive. At Lloyds’ annual meeting in May, Sir Win Bischoff, Lloyds’ chairman, hinted that it would examine such a plan, but last week’s letter provides the first confirmation that it is serious about pursuing it.

“The implications [of the PPI charge] on compensation are being considered by the remuneration committee and will be determined by the board in due course,” Bischoff said at the AGM.

The exact proportion of Daniels’ bonus that Lloyds is trying to claw back is unclear, although I’m told it’s somewhere between one-third and half of the £1.45m he was awarded.

In a statement issued to me, Lloyds said: “This is an ongoing process. If and when there are conclusions reached from this process we would make them available as part of our normal reporting to the market.”

Technically, the money probably won’t have to be reclaimed from Daniels since under the City regulator’s new bonus rules, the majority of bonus payments awarded in one year have to be deferred for several years.

UK Financial Investments, which manages the taxpayer’s stakes in Britain’s bailed-out banks, and the Financial Services Authority are both understood to be aware of Lloyds’ intention.

I’m told that other former senior Lloyds executives, including Helen Weir, who ran the retail banking operation, have received similar letters from the bank. More awkwardly, it’s possible that Tim Tookey, the outgoing finance director and currently Lloyds’ acting chief executive while Horta-Osorio is on a fatigue-induced leave of absence, was also a recipient, although that’s unclear today.

In total, Lloyds’ executive directors were allotted just over £5m in performance-related payments for 2010, although not all of the five directors who shared these awards are likely to be subject to the clawback.

The move is likely to be welcomed by campaigners for boardroom pay reforms. While some FTSE-100 companies now include clawback provisions in the contracts of senior executives, the practice is not sufficiently widespread to have alleviated political pressure for radical change in the way bosses are paid.

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, will publish proposals to overhaul executive pay early next year.

That pressure is particularly acute in the banking industry, and was heightened yesterday by Sir Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, who reiterated calls for British banks to conserve capital rather than distributing it to employees and shareholders as they attempt to ride out the Eurozone debt crisis.

Analysts tell me that the move by Lloyds will put pressure on other UK banks to adopt the same approach when deciding whether bonuses awarded to their bosses should be reclaimed.

Lloyds’ remuneration committee is chaired by the former fund manager Tony Watson, whose predecessor was derided and eventually forced off the bank’s board for awarding Daniels the maximum possible bonus (which he waived) in a previous annual pay round.
Barclays and HSBC, which also announced large charges for PPI mis-selling, have like Lloyds replaced their chief executives in the last year. It’s conceivable that the bonuses awarded to John Varley, who ran Barclays, and Michael Geoghegan, former chief executive of HSBC, could also be affected, although neither bank would comment today.

It’s easily forgotten given subsequent events but Daniels was for many years regarded as one of the shrewdest bankers in Britain. He took the helm at Lloyds TSB in 2003, and was respected by investors until the bank’s merger with HBOS in late 2008 resulted in the Government taking a 43 per cent stake in the bank (subsequently reduced to 41 per cent).

The exposure to HBOS’s horrendous loan book has so far resulted in more than £50bn in impairment charges and a share price still lagging well below the average price at which the taxpayer bought into the bank.

Between February, when he handed over the reins to Horta-Osorio, and September Daniels was retained as an adviser to the board on a salary understood to be broadly equivalent on a pro rata basis to the £1.035m he received in basic salary in 2010.

Daniels was unavailable for comment today and although I’m told he is not contesting the clawback attempt from his former employer, one friend of his pointed out to me today that PPI was sold entirely legally until the FSA declared it illegal retrospectively.

Lloyds declined to comment beyond the statement I’ve included above. The other Lloyds executives potentially affected by the clawback move could not be reached for comment.

Exclusive: Lloyds To Claw Back Daniels Bonus | lloyds_banking_group | eric_daniels | banks | Kleinman | Sky News Blogs

[debtisbad]

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

Lloyds former CEO is having his bonus witheld over the hit that they took from PPI misselling......breaking news on Sky News at the moment.

At last, it has been realised that we should not reward failure with massive bonuses.