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

[SoapyBubbles]

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

I think what is meant is

Lloyds Banking Group

Lloyds TSB
Black Horse
Halifax
Bank of Scotland
Sainsbury's Bank
etc...

Yea, something like that thanks.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

No, the FOS are using the new rules despite the JR challenge.



Lloyds are the only ones who have officially pulled out. Of the others Barclays are said to be on the verge of pulling out and HSBC are said to want to continue.

We'll know for sure by next Wednesday at the latest.

What umbrella would MBNA fall under? If any?

[cappo]

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

No, the FOS are using the new rules despite the JR challenge.



Lloyds are the only ones who have officially pulled out. Of the others Barclays are said to be on the verge of pulling out and HSBC are said to want to continue.

We'll know for sure by next Wednesday at the latest.

thats typical i,ve got 4 cases with hsbc now

[skv123]

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

I think what is meant is

Lloyds Banking Group

Lloyds TSB
Black Horse
Halifax
Bank of Scotland
Sainsbury's Bank
etc...

[EXC]

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

i have a complaint in with the fos at the moment,i don,t know if they are going by the new fsa rules yet as this j.r still maybe hasn,t run it,s course, i have asked whether the case can be judged on the new rules,wouid i have to specifically ask if the fos couid investigate that or wouid it be automatic

No, the FOS are using the new rules despite the JR challenge.

Is it possible that someone could post the specific banks which are now not taking any further part in the JR or any appeal as opposed to the larger umbrella they would fall under?

Lloyds are the only ones who have officially pulled out. Of the others Barclays are said to be on the verge of pulling out and HSBC are said to want to continue.

We'll know for sure by next Wednesday at the latest.

[SoapyBubbles]

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

Is it possible that someone could post the specific banks which are now not taking any further part in the JR or any appeal as opposed to the larger umbrella they would fall under?

[debtisbad]

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

for di and nellie


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

Interestingly in the article, it states that, "In a shock move, it [Lloyds] set aside up to £3.2 billion to cover the cost of compensating people mis-sold the policies after deciding to withdraw from any further legal action on the issue."

The article went on to declare, "The scale of the provision surprised the City and caused its shares to slump 9% after the banking giant recorded a loss of £3.47 billion for the first three months of the year, compared with a £721 million profit last year."

However, the best part stated that, "The huge amount set aside also suggests that the final PPI compensation bill for the whole industry could be far higher than the £4.5 billion that was originally estimated by the Financial Services Authority, with speculation that between £7 billion and £8 billion could eventually be paid out."

Now, perhaps politicians, regulators and others in authority will begin to understand why we are one of, if not the highest, personally indebted nations in the world.

[di30]

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

Thanks Di - you too..........and indeed everyone's

Luckily the only one I have in the pipeline is LTSB, although OH did have PPI on several car purchases back in the 1990s/early 2000s that we no longer have the paperwork for - who knows, maybe if this all goes in our favour those companies will come out of the woodwork to offer refunds too..............on second thoughts I doubt it though

Now must get back to that packing....................

Cheers hun, well you never know, perhaps it will be one of those they will automatically pay out. xx

[cappo]

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

[cappo]

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

I don't think it would be as straight forwards as that but if the FSA's ultimate view - as a result of the Policy Statement - is that time barring is generally not applicable, why not register a complaint?

i have a complaint in with the fos at the moment,i don,t know if they are going by the new fsa rules yet as this j.r still maybe hasn,t run it,s course, i have asked whether the case can be judged on the new rules,wouid i have to specifically ask if the fos couid investigate that or wouid it be automatic

[EXC]

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

what wouid that mean exc for all the 50,000 people who got paid out for having no policy documents from capital 1, mine was sold to me 6 weeks before the fsa fines and i never had a policy document either, wouid i get compensated under the root cause analysis it was nov 2004

I don't think it would be as straight forwards as that but if the FSA's ultimate view - as a result of the Policy Statement - is that time barring is generally not applicable, why not register a complaint?

[cappo]

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

I've just realised that the first line of the FSA quote in my last post surely must mean that pre 2005 sales are to be included in the Root Cause Analysis customer contact exercise as the RCA requirements are a handbook provision.

what wouid that mean exc for all the 50,000 people who got paid out for having no policy documents from capital 1, mine was sold to me 6 weeks before the fsa fines and i never had a policy document either, wouid i get compensated under the root cause analysis it was nov 2004

[EXC]

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

I've just realised that the first line of the FSA quote in my last post surely must mean that pre 2005 sales are to be included in the Root Cause Analysis customer contact exercise as the RCA requirements are a handbook provision.

[pompeyfaith]

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.

[EXC]

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

How far back can you claim if you have the original paperwork please?

In general terms there is no time limit:


Time barring and pre-2005 sales
Some firms argued that complaints about pre-2005 sales should not be included in the
scope of our Handbook provisions because they are all or mostly already out of time to be
considered on their merits (i.e. they are ‘time barred’ under our existing DISP rules).33
We disagree with this view. Decisions concerning the time barring of individual
complaints are ultimately for the FOS to make, but in general terms, our view (as set
out in CP10/6 para 3.14), is that general media coverage of the PPI issue, including
comments or publications by us, would not be enough to have given a consumer the kind
of specific ‘constructive knowledge’ required by DISP’s time limits.34
Accordingly, while some consumers who bought PPI before January 2005 may, on an
assessment of their individual circumstances and events, be deemed to have had appropriate
awareness before January 2008, such that they will be out of time by January 2011, our
view is that this is unlikely to apply to consumers generally (though that is ultimately a
decision for the FOS to make concerning complaints referred to it).

Conclusion on pre-2005 sales
There is nothing in firms’ responses which leads us to consider it necessary to retract
from our statement in the open letter concerning pre-2005 sales or to carve out
complaints about these sales from the scope of our final provisions. To do either would
leave substantially unaddressed the poor handling of a very significant proportion of PPI
complaints, and thus the significant potential consumer detriment caused by many of
these sales.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps10_12.pdf

[Angry Cat]

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport...pi_claims.html

by Robert Peston:

My banking sources are surprised by the magnitude of the PPI charge taken by Lloyds. It was significantly bigger than they had expected.
They would expect RBS to eventually take a PPI hit of around £1bn (as I mentioned in a post last month) rather than the £2bn implied by Lloyds' PPI provision.
That said, it is highly unlikely that RBS will quantify the potential PPI damage when it announces its first quarter results tomorrow.
On RBS's imminent results, I would expect it still to be in the red at the statutory level, including - for example - a debit from a market valuation of credit insurance provided to RBS by taxpayers under the Asset Protection Scheme.
But at the operating level it will be in profit. And RBS's general insurance operations should be back in the black (some would say 'at last') - which matters, because RBS is committed to dispose of these well-known insurance activities, probably by floating them on the stock market.

All eyes, on RBS!