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

[Mr Muffet]

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...s-reports-loss

So the fact that they have been squandering money on bonuses doesnt have anything to do with their losses ?

[Angry Cat]

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...s-reports-loss

[Angry Cat]

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

RBS Management statement. Looks like they're keeping quiet for the time being.


In the area of payment protection insurance (PPI), RBS continues to settle
claims where we believe that the customer has not been treated fairly or has suffered some detriment.
However, a decision on appeal of the court case, led by the BBA, has not yet been made as it relates
to important other issues of retrospective regulation. The uncertainties around the outcome of the PPI
action mean that, at this time, the Group is unable reliably to estimate any potential financial liability,
although it could prove to be material.

Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)
Following unsuccessful negotiations with the industry, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) issued
consultation papers on PPI complaint handling and redress in September 2009 and again in March
2010. The FSA published its final policy statement on 10 August 2010 and instructed firms to
implement the measures contained in it by 1 December 2010. The new rules impose significant
changes with respect to the handling of mis-selling PPI complaints. On 8 October 2010, the British
Bankers’ Association (BBA) filed an application for judicial review of the FSA’s policy statement and of
related guidance issued by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The application was heard in
January 2011. On 20 April 2011 the High Court issued judgment in favour of the FSA and the FOS.
The BBA is considering whether to appeal the judgment. At this time, the Group is unable reliably to
estimate any potential financial liability, although it could prove to be material.

http://www.investors.rbs.com/downloa...ults2011Q1Med1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13306295

RBS did not estimate its potential liability to payment protection insurance (PPI) compensation claims.
But it said the eventual cost could prove to be "material".
The results come a day after Lloyds Banking Group said it was setting aside £3.2bn to pay compensation to customers who were mis-sold PPI

[andrew1]

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

the banks have already started there damage limitation exercise over there missold ppi,and this looks like where the monies going to start coming from.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...h-2279767.html

I always did like the Swedes and I thought it was the women :tinysmile_grin_t:- nicked from the 'comments' at the foot of that article:

I see there's a bank called the JAK bank in Sweden with the following principles :

'Philosophy: According to the JAK philosophy, economic instability is a result of the taking of interest.

JAK operates under the following premises:

The taking of interest is inimical to a stable economy.
-Interest causes unemployment, inflation, and environmental destruction
-Interest moves money from the poor to the rich
-Interest favours projects which tend to yield high profits in the short-term
-The ultimate goal of JAK is to abolish interest as an economic instrument and to replace it with instruments that are in the best interest of people.
First aim of the bank is to offer a feasible financial instrument to its members, sustainable for the environment and serving local economy.'


How can I now say "I'm in love with a beautiful Swedish bank"? - just doesn't work does it? - I'll stick to the women

[cappo]

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

the banks have already started there damage limitation exercise over there missold ppi,and this looks like where the monies going to start coming from.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...h-2279767.html

[EXC]

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

RBS Management statement. Looks like they're keeping quiet for the time being.


In the area of payment protection insurance (PPI), RBS continues to settle
claims where we believe that the customer has not been treated fairly or has suffered some detriment.
However, a decision on appeal of the court case, led by the BBA, has not yet been made as it relates
to important other issues of retrospective regulation. The uncertainties around the outcome of the PPI
action mean that, at this time, the Group is unable reliably to estimate any potential financial liability,
although it could prove to be material.

Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)
Following unsuccessful negotiations with the industry, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) issued
consultation papers on PPI complaint handling and redress in September 2009 and again in March
2010. The FSA published its final policy statement on 10 August 2010 and instructed firms to
implement the measures contained in it by 1 December 2010. The new rules impose significant
changes with respect to the handling of mis-selling PPI complaints. On 8 October 2010, the British
Bankers’ Association (BBA) filed an application for judicial review of the FSA’s policy statement and of
related guidance issued by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The application was heard in
January 2011. On 20 April 2011 the High Court issued judgment in favour of the FSA and the FOS.
The BBA is considering whether to appeal the judgment. At this time, the Group is unable reliably to
estimate any potential financial liability, although it could prove to be material.

http://www.investors.rbs.com/downloa...ults2011Q1Med1

[EXC]

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

Good leader comment in the Times.



We needed protection from the banks that were fleecing us

For every £1 taken in personal protection premiums, less than 20p was paid out.

Taxpayers will groan at the news that Lloyds Banking Group has slumped to a £3.5 billion loss in the first three months of this year. They shouldn’t worry too much. No one is in much doubt that the Government will get back the £20 billion it forked out in rescuing Lloyds, and more.The red ink is almost entirely due to the one-off cost of righting a shabby wrong. Lloyds has belatedly accepted it has to compensate millions of customers who were mis-sold payment protection insurance. The product was aggressively pushed and was supposed to pay out when the borrower got into difficulties because of ill health or redundancy. Every bank was at it, scooping in billions a year in premiums for most of the Noughties.

But the PPI industry has been exposed as not much better than a vast institutionalised racket. Customers were misled and gouged on an industrial scale. Many had no idea that they were even buying policies, which were simply disguised within the overall loan. Many were wrongly told that they would not get a loan unless they agreed to the PPI too.

The little killer statistic at the heart of this grubby product was that for every £1 taken in premiums, less than 20p was paid out in claims. That compares with 60p to 90p for most other forms of insurance.

The dirty work was often done by lowly shop workers and branch staff, who came under pressure to sell PPI alongside store cards and personal loans. Bank and insurance company chiefs could parrot nonsense about compliance being followed, when on the shop floor customers were being routinely bamboozled.

The scale of the Lloyds payout has astonished the City. Scaled up for the entire industry, it seems the British people may have been fleeced to the tune of £8 billion or more. This is the order of magnitude of the pensions and endowment mis-selling scandals that rocked the financial services industry in the Eighties and Nineties.

Banks have till now dug in their heels over compensation. The capitulation by Lloyds could be the start of a wider surrender. The bank, which is 41 per cent owned by taxpayers, insists that its decision had nothing to do with the presence of HMG at the top of the shareholder register. But it’s hard to believe that it would have been so willing to settle otherwise. Some good has come from this partial nationalisation.

If Lloyds wants to convince us that it has really changed its spots it could go further. Bank bonuses these days are paid with clawback provisions. The Lloyds managers who sanctioned this pinstriped banditry should have their wallets lightened a little.

[Angry Cat]

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ent-wrong.html

October 13, 2008:

a week after accepting emergency funding, RBS receives multi-billion pound bailout as it comes close to collapse, leaving taxpayer as its majority shareholder. Shares 65.7p

About time that the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, started to act responsibly.

Compensate, the RBS (Group) customers who were sold useless Payment Protection Insurance!

Or, do RBS really want anymore adverse publicity?

Lloyds TSB, appear to have taken the lead... One would hope that the RBS Group 'controlling mind' will follow?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
http://www.advfn.com/lse/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=RBS

[nelliewops]

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

for di and nellie and db lol


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...s-2279299.html

Thanks cappo :tinysmile_grin_t:.............yep, still packing - it does seem like I've been at it forever although 'twas only in March we got our offer so can't really be that long! I still can't believe Lloyds have actually done the decent thing for once - let's hope I don't wake up tomorrow and find it was all a dream, lol!

[pompeyfaith]

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

I'll never forget and I'll never forgive, so in went my PPI claim while a wry smile as it went into the post box. - They go back to 1998

Andrew,

Good luck with that you are right about the treatment, as I will never forgive my bank I was with the way they treated me was unforgiveable.

Took me 2.5 yrs to get the redress I was owed but I never gave in as that is what they wanted my only hope now is that the banks see that it is a lost battle and they do the right thing so consumers do not have a long drawn out fight like I did.

[SoapyBubbles]

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

Lloyds bows to the law – and quite right | Business | guardian.co.uk

[andrew1]

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

Claim back as far as you can prove and that can be as far back as the paperwork allows and/or can get.

If you have not done a SAR that is your first avenue.

As for Lloyds Banking group it will now be interesting to see how they comply with such requests for data now that they have decided to redress consumers.

I'll let you know because I sent off a claim for two policies I was forced to take out as a result of my bank manager insisting I turned my Overdraft into a term loan and he assured me I would not get the loan (and here he was telling me they would not continue my o/d anyway) without taking his PPI. Although this was a Ltd company bank account, I was sole director and had to give the manager a directors guarantee to boot or I got no loan. I personally paid the guarantee off when we eventually closed the business and I was a self employed character for want of a title.

I'll never forget that fool as in one short meeting, when my business was actually expanding (but over trading) and I'd gone in to review the account, that was all, the bank - Lloyds bank turned on me like I'd done some terrible crime and completely messed up my business plan, my expansion and my cash flow in one fell swoop, ensuring I paid all the way along the line for the pleasure - I'll never forget and I'll never forgive, so in went my PPI claim with a wry smile as it went into the post box. - They go back to 1998

[pompeyfaith]

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

Well I think RBS will be the next to pull out.

[EXC]

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

There's a comprehensive list of who owns who here, albeit a little out of date:

Who Owns Who? -Credit Cards - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

In my view it only needs 2 more banks to withdraw their support for the JR for the appeal challenge to collapse. As Lloyds had the biggest liability at around one third of the total industry liability, 2 more banks would nudge it above 50%. The BBA, as a trade association, are unlikely to pursue an action in support of a minority of it's members' interests.

[SoapyBubbles]

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

As someone I think has already said (I think), I'm assuming an appeal can still be pursued by the BBA regardless if Lloyds are part of the appeal process or not? However would it not kinda make the BBA's appeal and the other banks look pretty damn silly when one of the big guns have now totally disassociated themselves with the whole process?

Santander knew from day one the JR would be a waste of time, energy and money and done the the right thing by not taking part in it.

Lloyds (granted a little later than Santander) now know the JR was a waste of time, energy and money and are now doing the right thing by not taking any further part in it.

Come on the rest! You really are beginning to look like complete and utter prats! If Santander didn't think the banks could win, why the hell would the rest? Santander AND Lloyds now KNOW they can't win, what the hell would give any other bank a reason to think they could win?

For the love of God banks, grow a set and step up to the mark and stop all this bloody stalling nonsense! How many more banks do you need to pull out of the JR before you realise 'YOU CAN'T AND WON'T WIN'!