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

[EXC]

Re: Blackhorse won't cancel my PPI?

I have started a claim 8 weeks ago against Blackhorse finance for the return of my PPI payments (£181 per month). When I started the claim I wrote in the letter that I wished to cancel this policy and stop paying them £181 per month. They contacted us and said that I couldn't cancel it and stop my payments at this time. Is this correct? I would have assumed I could cancel the PPI at any time and stop the payments. Does anyone know what the situation is with this type of thing?

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?

[kitchenart]

Blackhorse won't cancel my PPI?

I have started a claim 8 weeks ago against Blackhorse finance for the return of my PPI payments (£181 per month). When I started the claim I wrote in the letter that I wished to cancel this policy and stop paying them £181 per month. They contacted us and said that I couldn't cancel it and stop my payments at this time. Is this correct? I would have assumed I could cancel the PPI at any time and stop the payments. Does anyone know what the situation is with this type of thing?

[Angry Cat]

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

But in general terms the FOS will accept most of those dismissed complaints. The only major exceptions being where PPI was sold before 14 January 2005 by companies who were not regulated by the FSA prior to that date and were not members of the General Insurance Standards Council at the point that the event complained of occurred.

"The only major exceptions being where PPI was sold before 14 January 2005 by companies who were not regulated by the FSA prior to that date and were not members of the General Insurance Standards Council at the point that the event complained of occurred."[Emphasis Added]

Many, many consumers logged their complaints well before 2004/2005 to firms who had signed up to the ABI and the subsequent GISC.

Sadly, their concerns fell upon deaf ears...

[EXC]

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

I'm not sure if we got this sorted or not - so I'm just chucking in a belated two penn'orth, if I may.
An 'interest bearing' account is, I believe, an account which receives interest from the bank (or 'depositee' ??). This is not the same as income tax - this is investment income. So, £100 deposited in a savings account that pays 2.5 % per year will have 'earned' interest to the value of £2.50 in the first year. I think it's important to realise that the account balance of £102.50 is NOT liable for income tax at the end of the year. ONLY the £2.50 'earned' interest is taxable.

Yes I think that's what leclerc meant - that the interest earned would be taxable.

1. judicially, the LA 'clock' no longer starts at the JR outcome, but at the loan inception date ? - but;

2. the FSA/FOS do not impose such a limitation ?

Yes that's pretty much it.

The Judicial Review had no bearing on limitations in court proceedings as it was only concerned with the FSA's/FOS's complaints handling rules and not points of law as such, in contrast to the bank charges test case where the judiciary froze the limitations period for the duration of the litigation.

Some profess that you can circumvent the usual 6 year limitations period by using the exception in section in 32.1 but I firmly believe that you can't for PPI mis-selling. The only case I know of where this was tested in contested proceedings it failed miserably Lexology


With complaints, firstly a bank can technically dismiss a complaint without considering it's merits after 6 years has passed as per DISP - the FSA's complaints handling rules. But in general terms the FOS will accept most of those dismissed complaints. The only major exceptions being where PPI was sold before 14 January 2005 by companies who were not regulated by the FSA prior to that date and were not members of the General Insurance Standards Council at the point that the event complained of occurred.

[Bill-K]

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.

I guess that Mr G has to use his apparent judiciary expertise, if he - or anybody - is to believe in what he teaches. "Those who can...do..."

The Law may be an @$$, but it is not 'blinkered.' To ignore the FOS as CAG seems to do is 'tunnel vision,' surely ?

Whatever lending institution now 'owns' CAG will be well pleased with that POC, and the clear avoidance of the FOS. You really shouldn't distress yourself further by going there, EXC. It's about as uplifting as a weekend break in sunny Zimbabwe, methinks.

I do numbers, not legal stuff, so I'm genuinely not up to speed with that aspect. Your opinion here would be appreciated - and respected. With regard to the LA, am I right in currently thinking that:

1. judicially, the LA 'clock' no longer starts at the JR outcome, but at the loan inception date ? - but;

2. the FSA/FOS do not impose such a limitation ?

[Bill-K]

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

Further to above:-

For some undisclosed reason, it is NOT assumed that we might have spent a bit more on our kidz, our holidayz, or to improve our generally declining standard of living, etc. It is assumed that those of us who need to borrow money are also in a position to save it !!! I don't follow that train of thought, and I do not think it is a reasonable assumption to make. For that reason, I do not think the 8% should be taxable.

Some figures, if I may...

Bunging the numbers into Excel, I get this:-

£100 invested in this fabled savings account that pays 8% Simple Interest over 30 years would yield £240 in interest.

£100 invested in a realistic savings account that pays 4.165% AER Compound Interest over 30 years would yield £240 in interest.

So - in that respect - I concede that 8% SI is probably not that bad, compared to the 'real world' scenario.

But - I still maintain that it is illogical to assume that someone who needs to borrow would have otherwise invested their money in an account which attracts interest at an AER of 4.165%.

[Bill-K]

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

If the funds are paid into a current account that is interest bearing, the value of the account is taxed, right? Isn't that the tax paid?

I'm not sure if we got this sorted or not - so I'm just chucking in a belated two penn'orth, if I may.
An 'interest bearing' account is, I believe, an account which receives interest from the bank (or 'depositee' ??). This is not the same as income tax - this is investment income. So, £100 deposited in a savings account that pays 2.5 % per year will have 'earned' interest to the value of £2.50 in the first year. I think it's important to realise that the account balance of £102.50 is NOT liable for income tax at the end of the year. ONLY the £2.50 'earned' interest is taxable.

So, our erstwhile PPI premiums are assumed to have been paid into a bank account which attracts 8% simple interest. This would - allegedly - equate to the 8% Statutory Interest (SI) upon which the IR is presuming to levy income tax. In effect, a £100 award of SI is deemed by the IR to be the equivalent of £100 'earned interest' on our savings deposit as mentioned above. Whatever else is in that savings account is NOT taxable - only the interest which is paid on it.

I needed to say that - even if it doesn't make sense to anybody else !!!

[EXC]

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

[Angry Cat]

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

IMHO, this link explains the situation:
Got PPI compensation? You probably owe tax

[dogtired]

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

Although this is slightly off subject I DO pay tax on a small NHS pension.
Regarding PPI out of three, so far they have "paid off" existing amounts and I have had the remainder very small amounts, no demand from Mr Taxman but give hime time DT

[Angry Cat]

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

Members who are retired should read the following link:
Do you have to pay tax in retirement? : Directgov - Pensions and retirement planning

[debtisbad]

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

I can't see that because that would be interest accrued subsequent to the refund amount being liable for tax.

It's the same as income that is either taxed at source or not which then attracts interest if placed in a interest bearing account.

OK, gotcha, I understand now, thanks.

[EXC]

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

If the funds are paid into a current account that is interest bearing, the value of the account is taxed, right? Isn't that the tax paid?

Dunno why my brain was not operating before reading that link from AC but it jogged my vaguer memory!!

I can't see that because that would be interest accrued subsequent to the refund amount being liable for tax.

It's the same as income that is either taxed at source or not which then attracts interest if placed in a interest bearing account.

[debtisbad]

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

If the funds are paid into a current account that is interest bearing, the value of the account is taxed, right? Isn't that the tax paid?

Dunno why my brain was not operating before reading that link from AC but it jogged my vaguer memory!!

Quite right, so it is now bring taxed twice, I presume?

[leclerc]

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

If the funds are paid into a current account that is interest bearing, the value of the account is taxed, right? Isn't that the tax paid?

Dunno why my brain was not operating before reading that link from AC but it jogged my vaguer memory!!