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

[Bill-K]

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

Bill-k, it's the overall package that you need to look at and not just the fact that a person might not be eligible for travel insurance

I agree, M. Leclerc, that - just like PPI - there can be a wide range of reasons why a package is inappropriate, unsuitable, or just plain useless - and these can be quite different from those which may affect the mis-selling of PPI. Indeed, there may perhaps be parts of a 'package' that are not insurance-related at all - but which may still be unsuitable, and therefore mis-sold.

This is why I'm interested in any history of being fined or reprimanded for mis-selling ANYTHING - not just insurance.

[leclerc]

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

AFAIK no bank has been fined for mis-selling packaged accounts.

I don't think you can rely on ICOBS to reclaim for past mis-selling as the FSA has pretty much given the banks a get-out clause - ''We did not write our ICOBS requirements with packaged bank accounts in mind.''

However the FSA's Treating Customers Fairly principles should apply regardless but wouldn't necessarily cover everything that ICOBS would if it had applied.

Here's an example of Lloyds refunding someone presumably on the grounds of unsuitability New bank mis-selling scandal as watchdog plans 'premium' account crackdown | Mail Online

It would be worth having a look to see if the FOS has uphold rate figures for packaged account mis-selling complaints as that would give us a fair indication. If they haven't published the figures then request them under the Freedom of Information Act as they will be covered by the Act from next Tuesday.

As you may know, I do take an interest in this kind of misselling simply because I feel it may be widespread and that people have sometimes been mislead after the point of sale into keeping an account because it may be tied into a discounted product and are under the belief that it they change their packaged account to a standard current account that they lose the discount(they wouldn't on fixed rate products). Furthermore, I have always stated that I believe a partial reclaim IS possible on packaged account if you can clearly demonstrate that the packaged account benefits against the cost involved do not save you money or that you have another product which has continued on in spite of upgrading(as they call it) or opening a packaged account because it show evidence that the package of benefits that is given was not explained properly at the point of sale.

The example that the Daily Mail has got is clearly one where no benefits whatsoever were beneficial to the individual and therefore it was worthless.

I don't think that ineligibility for insurances is necessarily the key to claims on misselling packaged accounts because you may benefit from other things within that account that may outweigh the amount you pay. Bill-k, it's the overall package that you need to look at and not just the fact that a person might not be eligible for travel insurance

[dogtired]

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

The $64,000 dollar question for many...
Can one have ones cake and eat it?

sorry forgot to put that the original PPI claim was two years ago and it is that the Welcome say they cannot "do" any more they say they will take it off the outstanding balance of the alleged existing account thats why I asked the original question.

[Bill-K]

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

...AFAIK no bank has been fined for mis-selling packaged accounts...

Early days, of course, EXC. I'm thinking of the wider category, which I think may still be applicable to both PPI and Packaged. This is that being fined for mis-selling ANY insurance must surely be good enough evidence. Indeed - being fined for mis-selling ANYTHING WHATSOEVER is perhaps enough to tick the box - whether it be PPI, PA, or custom-printed bogroll !!!

Re-focussing on insurance, though...sure, pre-ICOBS claims may have problems, but the FSA disclaimer you quote doesn't - to my tiny mind - absolve them of any responsibility, simply because a claim comes in under the label 'Packaged Account.' Mis-sold insurance is mis-sold insurance, I reckons. Label it as 'Our New Super-duper Family Protection Scheme,' if need be - but if the end result is a mis-sold product, then a misleading label is nowt more than another piece of damning evidence, IMHO - certainly NOT a defence !!!

I've not had the dubious pleasure of working on a 'PA' claim as yet, so I'm merely trying to gather info and opinion on this subject. I wouldn't expect any recent figures on 'uphold rate' to be much of an indication, as yet, though.

Regarding unenforceability -v- PPI reclaims, I agree with AC, in that we must make our choice. If we are wishing to reclaim PPI on a debt which we do NOT acknowledge, then we must surely - AT THE VERY LEAST - be extremely careful with our words. Personally, I believe that we should use unenforceability as a means to an end - and NOT as an end in itself - but every claim is different.

[nelliewops]

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

The FSA are acting on the mis-selling of packaged current accounts and, rightly, want to bring them in line with the selling of insurance:

They'll have to:

• Check whether the customer is eligible to claim under each policy and share that information with them;
• Provide customers with an annual eligibility statement prompting them to check whether their circumstances have changed and whether the policies continue to meet their needs, and;
• If the sales adviser is recommending a packaged account they must establish whether each policy is suitable for the customer and alert them if some are not.

FSA increases customer protection in packaged account market

Sorry, not been around much of late folks due to ongoing family issues, but just wanted to say that LTSB refunded me a year's worth of packaged account fees earlier this year (not a lot considering we'd been paying them for quite some time, but better than nothing!) after I complained that we had not requested that our account be 'upgraded' and that we had the same 'benefits' provided elsewhere

[Angry Cat]

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

... OR push on with your unenforcability claims and sacrifice whatever PPI refund your due.

I suspect a lot of people who wanted to pursue both uneforceability and ppi have been/will be in the same boat. I guess its time to decide which is of more benefit to you.

The $64,000 dollar question for many...
Can one have ones cake and eat it?

[dogtired]

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

Another one settled from Sainsbury bank, taken since mid July and during this time even though they knew I had a claim for the PPI with FOS they passed it on to Blair Oliver Scott. Once the accoount is cleared i should have about £600!:tinysmile_grin_t:
Just Barclays and Welcome to go then!!!

[EXC]

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

More banks have admitted they are failing to hit the 28-day deadline between agreeing a payment protection insurance (PPI) compensation figure and paying it........

More banks admit PPI compensation delays

[EXC]

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

Cheers, EXC.
Further to previous. If we can have links to the provenance of aforesaid miscreants' fines, then that would be ACE.
Thanks to your links, I've downloaded the doc - BUT - I have EVERY faith in your speed-reading/assimilation/summarisation abilities !!! Do your stuff, guv'nor !!!We may find ourselves in shark-free waters for a while, but even £10 - £15 p/m could become big bucks if we factor in that dreaded 'consequential losses' question. Same rules - new ball game, methinks. BUT - it will be even HARDER for the banks to reverse out of this, as it is overtly 'packaged.'

OK - so we are gonna fall back on ICOBS for this, then ?

We may perhaps find ourselves applying newer legislation to older stuff, and needing to resolve anomalies. Even with no sharks, the waters could become somewhat 'choppy,' I reckon.

AFAIK no bank has been fined for mis-selling packaged accounts.

I don't think you can rely on ICOBS to reclaim for past mis-selling as the FSA has pretty much given the banks a get-out clause - ''We did not write our ICOBS requirements with packaged bank accounts in mind.''

However the FSA's Treating Customers Fairly principles should apply regardless but wouldn't necessarily cover everything that ICOBS would if it had applied.

Here's an example of Lloyds refunding someone presumably on the grounds of unsuitability New bank mis-selling scandal as watchdog plans 'premium' account crackdown | Mail Online

It would be worth having a look to see if the FOS has uphold rate figures for packaged account mis-selling complaints as that would give us a fair indication. If they haven't published the figures then request them under the Freedom of Information Act as they will be covered by the Act from next Tuesday.

[dogtired]

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

From my understanding of what you are saying they are not withdrawing an offer, you are simply refusing to accept it as you dont want to sign a new loan agreement, presumably if you have a ppi reclaim then you must have had the loan therefore I think you have to make a decision, either accept the loan exists and take the ppi money signing a new credit agreement (has been standard procedure with welcome on both FOS and non FOS claims for some time now) OR push on with your unenforcability claims and sacrifice whatever PPI refund your due.

I suspect a lot of people who wanted to pursue both uneforceability and ppi have been/will be in the same boat. I guess its time to decide which is of more benefit to you.

Thnks paul thats what i thought I have made myself an appointment with the local Citzens Advice Centre for early next week
DT

[Paul210]

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

Can any one tel me if a company can withdraw a PPI offer?
We "won" one with the FOS but refused to sign the paper work.
The complication being that it was Welcome Finance who have been altogether a bunch of !!!!
After requesting a SAR that was incomplete that had a different account number and address they have failed to come up with any legal "proof"
I approached the FOS who eventually have told me that they cannot look at the enforceability of this alleged account but can look at the PPI how can they do this it is allegerdly the same account.
We did have a Welcome account at our old address but had no paper work regarding our new address.
I have a whole file of stuff and letters to and from Welcome!
Earlier this year they got a collection company involved and they also have failed to provide CCA (last letter in March)
Where do I go from here, there was PPI on the paper work I do have but FOS have now said that I should accept this offer which in effect a "new" loan.
sorr to rambe every one looking for your advice please
DT

From my understanding of what you are saying they are not withdrawing an offer, you are simply refusing to accept it as you dont want to sign a new loan agreement, presumably if you have a ppi reclaim then you must have had the loan therefore I think you have to make a decision, either accept the loan exists and take the ppi money signing a new credit agreement (has been standard procedure with welcome on both FOS and non FOS claims for some time now) OR push on with your unenforcability claims and sacrifice whatever PPI refund your due.

I suspect a lot of people who wanted to pursue both uneforceability and ppi have been/will be in the same boat. I guess its time to decide which is of more benefit to you.

[dogtired]

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

Can any one tel me if a company can withdraw a PPI offer?
We "won" one with the FOS but refused to sign the paper work.
The complication being that it was Welcome Finance who have been altogether a bunch of !!!!
After requesting a SAR that was incomplete that had a different account number and address they have failed to come up with any legal "proof"
I approached the FOS who eventually have told me that they cannot look at the enforceability of this alleged account but can look at the PPI how can they do this it is allegerdly the same account.
We did have a Welcome account at our old address but had no paper work regarding our new address.
I have a whole file of stuff and letters to and from Welcome!
Earlier this year they got a collection company involved and they also have failed to provide CCA (last letter in March)
Where do I go from here, there was PPI on the paper work I do have but FOS have now said that I should accept this offer which in effect a "new" loan.
sorr to rambe every one looking for your advice please
DT

[leclerc]

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

The FSA are acting on the mis-selling of packaged current accounts and, rightly, want to bring them in line with the selling of insurance:

They'll have to:

• Check whether the customer is eligible to claim under each policy and share that information with them;
• Provide customers with an annual eligibility statement prompting them to check whether their circumstances have changed and whether the policies continue to meet their needs, and;
• If the sales adviser is recommending a packaged account they must establish whether each policy is suitable for the customer and alert them if some are not.

FSA increases customer protection in packaged account market

Exc, oh god, do you know that their sales adviser stuff is not actually increasing protection with regards to point of sale except the eligibility to claim bit.
The recommendation bit, I already know RBS Group do complete something which is called an illustrator which goes through the package of benefits(and some of them are completed when the customer has left the branch) which renders them pretty much USELESS!!

[andrew1]

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

I have one on a Capital One claim on a self employed friend. Cap1 have requested a letter from the Inland Revenue on their headed paper showing their class 1 or class 2 N.I Contributions. " Without this information we are unable to determine if any redress is due"

The man was a Director of a small sole proprietor Ltd co.and was only paid via Dividends so no NI was paid. Seems the Inland Revenue are going to be none too happy to be getting requests from customers for these confirmations when they are already stretched to the extreme doing what they're paid to do! cap1 really are the pits.

[Bill-K]

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

Cheers, EXC.
Further to previous. If we can have links to the provenance of aforesaid miscreants' fines, then that would be ACE.
Thanks to your links, I've downloaded the doc - BUT - I have EVERY faith in your speed-reading/assimilation/summarisation abilities !!! Do your stuff, guv'nor !!!We may find ourselves in shark-free waters for a while, but even £10 - £15 p/m could become big bucks if we factor in that dreaded 'consequential losses' question. Same rules - new ball game, methinks. BUT - it will be even HARDER for the banks to reverse out of this, as it is overtly 'packaged.'

OK - so we are gonna fall back on ICOBS for this, then ?

We may perhaps find ourselves applying newer legislation to older stuff, and needing to resolve anomalies. Even with no sharks, the waters could become somewhat 'choppy,' I reckon.