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

[EXC]

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

I've not read the FSA's consultation document yet but I would hope that the FSA applies it's insurance selling regulations retrospectively to packaged accounts - in a similar way it did with the PPI Policy Statement - so that people will have decent grounds on which to reclaim.

Nope - doesn't look like it:

2.1 The sale of insurance is subject to our Insurance Conduct of Business (ICOBS) rules
and our Principles for Businesses. We did not write our ICOBS requirements with packaged
bank accounts in mind. Although our current rules give firms flexibility to comply in
different ways we think it is necessary to make detailed rules and specify the steps firms
must take to establish eligibility and suitability (for future sales), in order to provide
appropriate consumer protection.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/cp/cp11_20.pdf

[EXC]

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

One of the reasons for PPI mis-selling has been this:

"I am aware that you have been fined by the FSA for failing to treat customers fairly when selling insurance, and therefore I do not believe that my policy was sold in my best interests."

I feel this could be continued in the vein of 'Packaged Account' reclaims, but I feel that a list of such miscreants needs to be kept, and updated regularly. If regular posters on this thread would be kind enough to help with starting this list, I would be obliged. Perhaps I'll then post a thread to this effect - and perhaps it might warrant a 'sticky' status.

Thanks in anticipation !!!

Nice one.

I've not read the FSA's consultation document yet but I would hope that the FSA applies it's insurance selling regulations retrospectively to packaged accounts - in a similar way it did with the PPI Policy Statement - so that people will have decent grounds on which to reclaim.

The thing is that with packaged accounts costing around £10 - £15 a month it'll not be worth too many CMCs getting involved and so any reclaiming campaign will have to be forum driven.

[Bill-K]

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

One of the reasons for PPI mis-selling has been this:

"I am aware that you have been fined by the FSA for failing to treat customers fairly when selling insurance, and therefore I do not believe that my policy was sold in my best interests."

I feel this could be continued in the vein of 'Packaged Account' reclaims, but I feel that a list of such miscreants needs to be kept, and updated regularly. If regular posters on this thread would be kind enough to help with starting this list, I would be obliged. Perhaps I'll then post a thread to this effect - and perhaps it might warrant a 'sticky' status.

Thanks in anticipation !!!

[Bill-K]

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

Sure looks like it, Enaid.

Looks like Turbo and I are gonna need to get our act together for this next episode.

It's enough to make a grown man cry, innit ?

and....Turbo - will you STOP twiddling your tie !!!

[enaid]

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

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.


Oh dear I get a feeling this is another fine mess they have gotten their selves into pmsl

[EXC]

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]

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

Here is one for everyone, following the court ruling and the need for lenders to look at older cases. Please comment and let me know your thoughts. I have a claim in with Next. It is old, but PPI was applied to the account without the express consent of the client. I have received a letter from Next which very helpfully points out to me that they did mis-sell the insurance but that because of the age of it and that they were not covered by the FOS at that point there is nothing I can do. Their letter actually states about PPI that between 1988 and 1993 "When customers opened an account they paid into the scheme automatically, unless we received a letter asking for this not to happen." later it says " I need to let you know that while the policy was automatically added to the account, it could have been cancelled at any time."
They then say that the FOS won't/can't handle the complaint so go away. Surely with a blatant admittance of mis-selling like this there is some recourse other than the courts open to us?

It is a matter for the FOS to decide if they can/will handle a complaint. Not Next.

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).

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.

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


Why not call the FOS helpline (0800 023 4567) and ask them?

[roffster]

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

Here is one for everyone, following the court ruling and the need for lenders to look at older cases. Please comment and let me know your thoughts. I have a claim in with Next. It is old, but PPI was applied to the account without the express consent of the client. I have received a letter from Next which very helpfully points out to me that they did mis-sell the insurance but that because of the age of it and that they were not covered by the FOS at that point there is nothing I can do. Their letter actually states about PPI that between 1988 and 1993 "When customers opened an account they paid into the scheme automatically, unless we received a letter asking for this not to happen." later it says " I need to let you know that while the policy was automatically added to the account, it could have been cancelled at any time."
They then say that the FOS won't/can't handle the complaint so go away. Surely with a blatant admittance of mis-selling like this there is some recourse other than the courts open to us?

[roffster]

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

p.s anyone with any experience of winning a fos claim v capital one - most dont win and wondering what you think makes the difference for fos to rule against cap one


As a general rule you will not win at FOS against Cap One unless they are self employed (even then it depends upon when it was sold) or the client has a pre existing med.

It appears that the FOS is happy with there sales processes, as the product they offer is not a bad one and not badly priced.

I have an ongoing complaint with the FOS about Cap One. The FOS rejected it despite my being able to illustrate that the mis-sale took place right in the middle of the period that the FSA fined them for poor practise and controls. Cap One were unable to provide any evidence to counteract my claim that they had mis-sold the policy over the phone in exactly the circumstances they were fined for. The FOS took their side! The adjudicator made reference to 'the balance of probability' throughout his rejection letter and when I had a heated discussion with him to point out that given the fact they had been fined for mis-selling in exactly these circumstances at that time then surely the 'balance of probability' should be weighted in the favour of the consumer. No. The complaint has now been escalated to the Ombudsman level and I wait with bated breath. I smell a rat.

[EXC]

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

It looks like the BBA have only just settled the FOS's Judicial Review costs - a good 4 or 5 months after they became due.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...dminutes11.pdf

[seller 17]

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

FSA fines Capital One for PPI sales failures

The FSA weren't always happy with their sales process.

Agreed, but the FOS only uphold 13% and the majority of those fit the criteria i have mentioned above.

http://www.ombudsman-complaints-data.org.uk/

[leclerc]

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

FSA fines Capital One for PPI sales failures

The FSA weren't always happy with their sales process.

[seller 17]

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

p.s anyone with any experience of winning a fos claim v capital one - most dont win and wondering what you think makes the difference for fos to rule against cap one


As a general rule you will not win at FOS against Cap One unless they are self employed (even then it depends upon when it was sold) or the client has a pre existing med.

It appears that the FOS is happy with there sales processes, as the product they offer is not a bad one and not badly priced.

[EXC]

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

House of Commons Written Answer: PPI Mis-selling

Emma Reynolds (Lab: Wolverhampton North East) asked HMT what information the Department holds on the average waiting time for resolution of complaints by the Financial Services Ombudsman for cases involving the mis-selling of payment protection insurance. Responding, Mark Hoban stated:

''The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is operationally independent of Government. According to their annual review, 41% of all complaints (including payment protection insurance (PPI)) were settled within three months, 70% within six months, 81% within nine months and 87% within 12 months. Their latest published quarterly figures show that they received 56,025 new cases about PPI between April and June 2011. HM Treasury does not hold more detailed information on waiting times than the data the FOS publishes.''

''There is currently a large number of PPI complaints at the FOS due to a build-up of claims following the banks’ earlier refusal to deal with cases during the British Bankers’ Association’s judicial review of the FSA and the FOS’s approach to PPI. The FOS is currently working closely with the banks to ensure cases can be resolved as soon as possible.''

[skv123]

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

That deadline was for the BANKS to have a decision, not the FOS. There is a distinction in that issue. The BANKS could no longer delay providing information to the FOS to decide cases anymore. In fact, Barclays supposedly was paying out no questions asked.

Yes and once consumers were aware the banks would have a decision by a set date the referrals to the FOS due to the delay would have significantly reduced...
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

What is the current timescale for receipt of the acceptance form to payout with Lloyds?

I'm up to almost 7 weeks from the confirmed receipt of the acceptance form......

Lloyds are being awful with this. I phoned them yesterday with once that is 9 weeks from them providing the figures and they were unable to tell me whether redress had been sent or not. They really seem to be in a mess at present. I'd chase them directly to find out and be happy that they've finally taken Dido off their hold music.