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

[di30]

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

Well done to everyone with success.

I have been having a nightmare of a day and on limited time now on getting everything else in to the Adjudicator - to have this reviewed by the ombudsman, but I feel he's trying to put us off.

If anyone gets a few mins, I would be happy to hear your opinions on my Hamilton/HFC matter please.

I have a huge headache and its like talking to a brick wall with the adjudicator at the moment.

Here below is the link to my thread, cheers folks, oh and here is the email below as well received from the Adjudicator, think he was a bit short myself but I'm not ready to give up quite yet, cheers.

Dear Mr & Mrs

I have spoken to HFC this morning in an attempt to speed up the process as promised. I explained that you felt that they were involved in the sale of the PPI policy and maybe responsible for that sale.

HFC explained to me that this was not the case and the loan and PPI were arranged on the same date by Click Finance. This is evidenced by the fact that the broker was paid commission for the sale of the insurance.

Therefore in light of these submissions, I would need some concrete evidence from you and Mrs ***** to show that it was not Click Finance that sold you the PPI policy.

I look forward to hearing from you by 30 June 2011.

Yours sincerely
M
Adjudicator | Financial Ombudsman Service
South Quay Plaza | 183 Marsh Wall | London | E14 9




http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...t=27433&page=6

[cappo]

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

Well done to everyone with success.

I have been having a nightmare of a day and on limited time now on getting everything else in to the Adjudicator - to have this reviewed by the ombudsman, but I feel he's trying to put us off.

If anyone gets a few mins, I would be happy to hear your opinions on my Hamilton/HFC matter please.

I have a huge headache and its like talking to a brick wall with the adjudicator at the moment.

Here below is the link to my thread, cheers folks, oh and here is the email below as well received from the Adjudicator, think he was a bit short myself but I'm not ready to give up quite yet, cheers.

Dear Mr & Mrs

I have spoken to HFC this morning in an attempt to speed up the process as promised. I explained that you felt that they were involved in the sale of the PPI policy and maybe responsible for that sale.

HFC explained to me that this was not the case and the loan and PPI were arranged on the same date by Click Finance. This is evidenced by the fact that the broker was paid commission for the sale of the insurance.

Therefore in light of these submissions, I would need some concrete evidence from you and Mrs ***** to show that it was not Click Finance that sold you the PPI policy.

I look forward to hearing from you by 30 June 2011.

Yours sincerely
M
Adjudicator | Financial Ombudsman Service
South Quay Plaza | 183 Marsh Wall | London | E14 9




http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...t=27433&page=6

Keep pushing along Di you know of all the problems i had with my adjudicator and as you know i also got the impression very keenly that they did'nt want me to take my cap 1 case to the ombudsman,in fora penny in for a pound my woman,all you'll lose is time,it won't cost you anything though,give it a go.

[dogtired]

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

Well done with M&S.
When did you put your complaint in? I have had 2 complaints in with them, one a credit card and one a loan, and they have been on hold since March 2011. Don't get any joy when I call and was told it could be weeks or months and no time scale available.

It was a spur of the moment thing, I was sorting out all my documents and came across all the documents, including the ones from the collection company, I rang them initially on or about the beginning of April, just before the judgment, had to phone them and got very frustrated as they have recently changed to an overseas call centre.
Did a cca and initially they said they "could not find evidence etc but sent me the form from them asking about ppi I filled it in and sent it back with copies of the original documents I had that had it added.
It then took a further month and just over the 28 days they asked for on the 12th of last monht but I got it and sent the acceptance form back today.
With the help and support both to myself and others it was LB that made me persist and insist on written responses still got to here from both the others and the Cabot one has not been as successful to date but again not giving up!

[dogtired]

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

Keep pushing along Di you know of all the problems i had with my adjudicator and as you know i also got the impression very keenly that they didn't want me to take my cap 1 case to the ombudsman,in fora penny in for a pound my woman,all you'll lose is time,it won't cost you anything though,give it a go.

Yes I got the distinct impression that the adjudicator did not want me to persist with a Bank of Scotland one but I have!
i wonder if it was the same one?
The other is still with a different adjudicator and this is the one with Halifax for which I posted the document earlier

[di30]

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

Keep pushing along Di you know of all the problems i had with my adjudicator and as you know i also got the impression very keenly that they did'nt want me to take my cap 1 case to the ombudsman,in fora penny in for a pound my woman,all you'll lose is time,it won't cost you anything though,give it a go.

Thanks Cappo I will.

I get the impression that the adjudicator was telling me if i don't get any proof, then it will not go to the ombudsman but I'm sure this is our choice at the end of the day.

I just hope now with the info i sent him via email he will take it in.

Strange that the application from Click finance has nothing to with PPI on it, then with the lender's loan agreement its all included on there.

Even on the Click finance application it has 240 months and the loan agreement sent by Endeavour the lender after the loan was paid out was that of over 300 months.

Something not right with it at all.

[pompeyfaith]

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

Just been allerted to this report where two consumers took there claims to county court and lost with costs it would appear anyone thinking of this route would need to have a clear recollection of events leading to the sell.

http://blog.rpc.co.uk/regulatory-law...-a-fos-hearing

Would be handy to get hold of these judgmemts

Regards

[EXC]

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

I couldn't agree more PF.

And the clear message is that you need to do more than watch a few episodes of Judge Judy or read some posts on CAG in order to win a PPI claim in court.

The problem is that the sole function of a court is to ''give effect to the law'' on an evidence based basis and so without recollection, let alone evidence, that is always going to be difficult to achieve. In contrast
the FOS is a complaints resolution organisation that will base it's decision on what is likely to have happened and what, in their opinion, is fair and reasonable - giving them much more scope to find in favour of the complainant over a court.

Below is a more detailed summary of the 2 cases and their significance.

What next for firms following the judicial review on payment protection insurance?

Introduction
Many consumers reading or listening to media reports on the High Court’s recent decision in R (on the application of British Bankers Association) v The Financial Services Authority & The Financial Ombudsman Service [2011] EWHC 999 (Admin), combined with the public announcements by banks including Lloyds Banking Group, may have the impression that payment protection insurance (“PPI”) was always mis-sold meaning many are in for a windfall. But like many things in life that seem too good to be true, it unlikely that simply making a PPI complaint will result in a windfall.

Judicial Review
The judicial review proceedings essentially challenged the lawfulness of the Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) Policy Statement 10/12 (“PS 10/12”). For many lenders and brokers selling PPI (called “firms”), PS 10/12 was seen as a step too far because it seemingly required them to take steps under (and assess complaints against) rules and standards that were not in force at the time of the sale of PPI. The High Court, in dismissing the application for judicial review, decided that PS 10/12 was lawful and firms needed to follow it.

Complaint Handling
The effect of PS 10/12 is, therefore, to require a complaint to be assessed in accordance with Appendix 3 to the FSA’s Dispute Resolution: Complaints (“DISP”). This will involve consideration of the Insurance: Conduct of Business Rules (“ICOB”) for sales on or after 14 January 2005 or the Insurance: Conduct of Business Sourcebook (“ICOBS”) for sales on or after 6 January 2008 and the FSA’s Principles. The Rules in DISP 3 are fairly detailed and, for example, explain the factors that the firm should consider combined with the weight it should give to the evidence. It also makes it clear, by DISP 3.6.1E, that if there is a breach or failing, the firm must consider whether the consumer would have bought the PPI without that breach or failing.

Provisions
There has been much publicity recently over the decision of major banks to make substantial provisions for compensation. Many consumers may therefore have the impression that firms are expecting to uphold every complaint. But this is simply not the case. While provisions have been made, it is an estimate of the likely level of redress that the firm may need to pay. Consumers believing they simply have to make a claim will therefore be disappointed: firms will continue to consider each complaint on its own merit and, if there is a failing, uphold the complaint. If, however, there is no failing then the consumer’s complaint is likely to be rejected.

FOS or Court?
If a consumer is unhappy with the firm’s final response, she has to make a decision: to refer her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”) or issue a claim in the County Court alleging PPI mis-selling. If a consumer has authorised a claims management company or a solicitor to act for her, the decision will often be taken with their advice. Our view is that consumers should not lose sight of the fact that the County Court is not a straight-forward process:

*The Court cannot (unlike FOS) take into account the FSA’s Principles: it can only take into account the strict wording of ICOB or ICOBS.

*The Court has (unlike FOS) the benefit of hearing live evidence. Consumers need to give sworn evidence and are cross-examined on their recollections. In our experience, their recollection is often contradicted by documentary evidence.

*Experienced judges are used to balancing evidence given by a consumer over events which happened years earlier. Many consumers, while doing the best they can to remember matters which happened many years earlier, do not prove their claims.

*There have been a number of decisions which have gone against consumers. Indeed, the growing body of decisions are largely in the firm’s favour.

Recent Decisions
There have been two recent judgments handed down after the judicial review. Firstly, District Judge Derbyshire handed down judgment on 6 May 2011 in Amanda Bishop v Lloyds TSB Bank plc (2011), Unreported, Reading County Court. Whilst the trial took place before judgment was handed down in the judicial review, District Judge Derbyshire reserved judgment and handed it down after the judicial review. Secondly, His Honour Judge Gosnell handed down judgment on 19 May 2011 in Cudahy & Liburd v Black Horse Limited (2011), Unreported, Leeds County Court. The trial took place after judgment in the judicial review and His Honour Judge Gosnell asked about the impact (if any) of the judicial review and Lloyds Banking Group’s provisioning announcement. In both cases, the consumers’ claims were dismissed and they were ordered to pay the lenders’ costs (including making an interim payment, in Cudahy, of £7,500).

In Bishop, District Judge Derbyshire decided that:
Despite being an “experienced borrower” with a “very good salary at the time of £60,000 odd”, Ms Bishop alleged that her agreement was unenforceable, the PPI was compulsory and there was an unfair relationship.
It was “not the case that she was dealing with a Bank employee who was a brash young salesman but rather a kindly old-style Bank Manager and Mr Burridge was thoroughly professional and experienced”.
Ms Bishop’s “recollection of events was at odds with the documentation”.

The financial implications were “clear from the documentation and that if she had read them it would have been clear to her and in particular the right to cancel”.
The fact that 65% of the PPI was kept by the Bank as commission “may have been a bad bargain” but there were “policy benefits”.

The facts were close to His Honour Judge Waksman QC’s decision in Harrison & Harrison v Black Horse Limited [2010] EWHC 3152 (QB) and there was therefore no unfair relationship.

In Cudahhy, His Honour Judge Gosnell decided that:
Whilst Ms Liburd (who dealt with the lender’s salesperson) and Ms Ingham (the lender’s sales person) were honest witnesses, Ms Liburd’s recollection of the events were “sketchy”. Whilst this was not her fault, given the passage of time, the learned judge expressed surprise that Ms Liburd could not remember her past loans or explain the significant difference between her income stated in her sworn witness statement and the documents. By contrast, Ms Ingham was a “very straightforward and clear woman and a businesslike employee”. She was also praised for her “mastery” of the documents and explanation of the logs.
Ms Ingham followed the standard sales script which made it clear that the PPI was optional.

Ms Liburd’s decision to decline more expensive cover in favour of life cover (which was cheaper) was an instruction that she wanted PPI.

Because the loan was secured, the lender had to comply with Section 58(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This meant it had to post an advance copy of the documents and could not, for seven days after sending them, contact the borrowers. After this period finished, the lender sent signature copies of the documentation and could not, once again, contact the borrowers for another seven days after sending them. The mortgage deed was also witnessed by a third party, not the lender’s employee. The borrowers therefore had a long time to consider all of the documentation before entering into the agreement.

The lender was not required to assess the PPI’s cost because the borrowers did not tell the lender that it was relevant to their demands and needs. Even if the borrowers did, the learned judge followed His Honour Judge Waksman QC’s decision in Harrison & Harrison v Black Horse Limited [2010] EWHC 3152 (QB). Because the lender only sold one policy, the effect of it doing so meant it only needed to consider the PPI’s costs against other policies that it sold (of which there were none) by virtue of ICOB 4.3.7(1)G. This would have been meaningless so there was no breach of ICOB.

The borrowers had “taken their eye off the ball” and may not “with the benefit of hindsight” have taken the PPI but they did so. They were not told the PPI was compulsory and all of the documentation explained its cost, its cover and the fact it was optional. It was not, in the learned judge’s view, Parliament’s intention to “protect people that did not exercise common sense”. It therefore followed that there was no unfair relationship.

Comment
Despite PS 10/12 and the judicial review, firms are still facing a substantial number of new court claims issued by solicitors in County Courts up and down the country. Such claims are always backed by a conditional fee agreement between the consumer and the solicitor (otherwise known as a “no win, no fee” agreement). If the consumer wins or settles the claim with the firm, the success fee sought is often 100%. Claims are also backed by expensive after the event insurance policy meaning that, by the time of trial, a consumer’s legal bill is often more than £50,000 but can sometimes be as high as £100,000 even when the value of the consumer’s claim is for little over £5,000. This is (on any view) wholly disproportionate when unhappy consumers can make a complaint to FOS, which is a free service with a decision that binds the firm if the consumer accepts it. If a consumer does not accept it, she can pursue a claim in the Court.

Given the high uphold rates at FOS, it must follow that consumers already in litigation (or contemplating litigation) who cannot recall the sale with absolute clarity would be better served by discontinuing their claim (or not making it) and making a complaint either directly to the firm or FOS. The consumers’ prospects of achieving a settlement through one of these avenues seem considerably better given the Court’s continued rejection of many PPI claims (even after the judicial review). Discontinuing or not pursuing claims does, however, cause a significant problem for solicitors and insurers that have already invested time and resources in pursuing a complaint through litigation (or contemplated litigation). Whilst solicitors are under an obligation to act in their client’s best interest at all times (and must put aside their own interests), discontinuing a claim will mean the solicitor recovers nothing. If the claim is, instead, pursued to trial, the prospect of recovering some of their costs (no matter how hopeless the prospects are) is plainly greater. No doubt time will show how this apparent conflict is resolved.

[cappo]

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

Thanks Cappo I will.

I get the impression that the adjudicator was telling me if i don't get any proof, then it will not go to the ombudsman but I'm sure this is our choice at the end of the day.

I just hope now with the info i sent him via email he will take it in.

Strange that the application from Click finance has nothing to with PPI on it, then with the lender's loan agreement its all included on there.

Even on the Click finance application it has 240 months and the loan agreement sent by Endeavour the lender after the loan was paid out was that of over 300 months.

Something not right with it at all.

my thoughts exactly,i had exactly the same i even sensed a snottiness on the phone that i did'nt accept the adjudicators decision, and a very clear feeling like yourself that if i could,nt find any other evidence it would,nt be worth the adjudicators time progressing it to the ombudsman,hope i have more luck with the barclaycard one. keep fighting the good fight.

[di30]

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

my thoughts exactly,i had exactly the same i even sensed a snottiness on the phone that i did'nt accept the adjudicators decision, and a very clear feeling like yourself that if i could,nt find any other evidence it would,nt be worth the adjudicators time progressing it to the ombudsman,hope i have more luck with the barclaycard one. keep fighting the good fight.

Thanks Cappo, you too hon.

The last email the adjudicator sent yesterday was that he was to respond in full in due course, but I don't have a lot of time on my hands now.
So I have been gathering as much info as possible towards this case for the ombudsman, even if its takes yet another 3 years.

However, surely they must see something is wrong to have different information on the application form from the broker to that of the lender's agreement, its as if the lender changed it all before we received the loan, yet the lender agreement came though afterwards which we was asked to sign and not done before the loan was paid out.

An idea sprang to mind as well, I still have bank statements of when this loan was paid into my bank, and this is going to show the date before we signed the loan agreement that they asked us to sign and send back ASAP.

[The Debt Star]

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

Therein lies the problem imo, since lenders can bury evidence on older claims. I have a PPI claim on with HFC at the moment and the only evidence I have are a few statements from a SAR going back to 2003. There were no older statements sent with the SAR and HFC have denied there was any PPI DESPITE the few 2003 statements showing PPI deductions. I have been forced by the bank to go the FOS (yet again) but am concerned that the omudsman will refuse to look into it because of the lack of proof. Seems like a good tactic for the banks to employ.

[debtisbad]

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

Therein lies the problem imo, since lenders can bury evidence on older claims. I have a PPI claim on with HFC at the moment and the only evidence I have are a few statements from a SAR going back to 2003. There were no older statements sent with the SAR and HFC have denied there was any PPI DESPITE the few 2003 statements showing PPI deductions. I have been forced by the bank to go the FOS (yet again) but am concerned that the omudsman will refuse to look into it because of the lack of proof. Seems like a good tactic for the banks to employ.

I mentioned this much earlier somewhere on here, but it's worth a mention again. I had a credit card with the Scabbey Abbey, dating back to around 1999. Abbey cards were taken over by MBNA and the eventual debt was sold to Lowells when I went abroad and did not keep up payments. Lowell's tried to get over ten thousand pounds out of me, but as I was abroad there was nothing that they could do.

When PPI started to get mentioned, I realised that I had PPI with the card and wrote to Abbey to make a claim. They stated that they never kept records going back that far, they said the PPI was not mis sold (funny how they could say that without keeping records-also they effectively admitted that a PPI policy was in place) and they also lied to me by telling me that I could not go to the FOS.

I went to the FOS and Abbey had to pay me all of the PPI, plus 8% interest, plus compensation, which came to around eight hundred and thirty pounds.

Therefore, all I can say to people where the banks say they have no record, is report it to the FOS anyway. It worked for me, why can't it work for you?

[The Debt Star]

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

Therefore, all I can say to people where the banks say they have no record, is report it to the FOS anyway. It worked for me, why can't it work for you?

absolutely. give it a go.

I'll post on here when I hear from the FOS and let y'awl know.

[nelliewops]

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

I mentioned this much earlier somewhere on here, but it's worth a mention again. I had a credit card with the Scabbey Abbey, dating back to around 1999. Abbey cards were taken over by MBNA and the eventual debt was sold to Lowells when I went abroad and did not keep up payments. Lowell's tried to get over ten thousand pounds out of me, but as I was abroad there was nothing that they could do.

When PPI started to get mentioned, I realised that I had PPI with the card and wrote to Abbey to make a claim. They stated that they never kept records going back that far, they said the PPI was not mis sold (funny how they could say that without keeping records-also they effectively admitted that a PPI policy was in place) and they also lied to me by telling me that I could not go to the FOS.

I went to the FOS and Abbey had to pay me all of the PPI, plus 8% interest, plus compensation, which came to around eight hundred and thirty pounds.

Therefore, all I can say to people where the banks say they have no record, is report it to the FOS anyway. It worked for me, why can't it work for you?

Hear hear DIB

The one I've just had upheld by the FOS against LTSB I had nothing except the loan account number - not even any statements with the payments on, but the FOS still upheld Definitely worth everyone who feels they've been mis-sold giving it a go!

[The Debt Star]

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

Hear hear DIB

The one I've just had upheld by the FOS against LTSB I had nothing except the loan account number - not even any statements with the payments on, but the FOS still upheld Definitely worth everyone who feels they've been mis-sold giving it a go!

Excellent! That's cheered me up.

[leclerc]

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

There is a rumour and I can't confirm this at the moment, that Lloyds may announce next week that they will settle ALL claims up to May 5th on a similar basis to Barclays as simply to clear the backload of claims and to be able to hit the deadline of the end of August for such claims. As I said, there is no confirmation of this but I am lead to believe that an announcement is imminent possibly next week.