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

[debtisbad]

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

You were spot on.

Revised offer received today including return of all PPI premiums going back to 1990 + simple interest only.
They have not however refunded interest charged in relation to the PPI premiums - After a debate about this on another thread I really dont know what to do with this now......will give 'em a rig tomorrow and discuss my concerns.

Well done. Certainly,now that they have refunded the PPI payments and therefore admitted that they were wrong, they HAVE to add interest. You can use the calculator tool on here to work it out at 8% per year, the standard county court rate used.

[The Debt Star]

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

, go to the regulator!

I'm finding the FOS worse than bad at the moment

[MattyA]

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

Well done. Certainly,now that they have refunded the PPI payments and therefore admitted that they were wrong, they HAVE to add interest. You can use the calculator tool on here to work it out at 8% per year, the standard county court rate used.

Thanks DIB.

Just re read my post which isnt totally clear.
They have offered to repay all premiums paid by me + 8%.
What they are refusing to repay is the interest applied by them to the premiums each month - which makes a big difference to the amount they will have to repay.

I think this is a tactic to force me to the FOS which will take an age.....
or maybe I am being a cynic / untrusting of our highly respected bankers.

Matty

[MattyA]

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

I'm finding the FOS worse than bad at the moment

Agreed.

I have a number of PPI complaints on with them and have received letters last week advising me of delays in looking into my comlaints and that they cannot advise the length of time I will be waiting for an adjudicator to be appointed.

One case has been upheld - but they (Amex) will not pay up in line with FOS guidelines so ajudicator has asked for an Ombudsman to review.
This was four months ago and it still has not been allocated to an Ombudsman.

Matty

[The_Big_Dog]

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

I'm finding the FOS worse than bad at the moment

Hear, Hear!!!!

I'm very cynical of everything at present, but I'm incredibly wary of the FOS at the current time and I honestly believe that there is a hidden agenda there against claimants, and in particular, CMC's.

I'm a CMC, and I think I'm one of the better ones out there and do the job properly, and I've had EVERY decision go against me since the JR started - frustrating is not the word. It's got so bad that I've lodged a complaint about the service ny clients are receiving, and clearly stated on the bottom of it that I feel that there is something seriously amiss at the FOS, and some of the decisions that we've seen are a total disgrace. It may well be that the FOS don't like CMC's, however, that doesn't mean that my clients should have to suffer.

I've had around 15 adjudictions go against my clients, and all of the complaints were shoo ins. All of the big mis-sells were in there - pre-existing meds, self employed, full employer benefits etc etc., and none of them deemed to be mis-sold. To be frank, if the FOS don't think these weren't mis-sells, then I don't think that they're fit for purpose.

Let me just give you an example of what we seem to be up against, which is the last one I received:

I've got a client who was sold a lump sum policy by Nat West in April, 2007. She was consolidating an existing Nat West loan (which also had ppi), was full time employed as a civil servant for 20 years with full employee benefits. Based on what she told me during our initial interview, she was not given any information regarding the ppi, but the adviser quoted her a monthly repayment of £X for a fully protected loan which would cover the loan repayments if she couldn't work. There were a few minor points in there that also pointed to a mis-sell, but that was the gist of the case.

I argued that firstly, as the sale was goverened by ICOB, the adviser should have taken her employee benefits and length of employment into account before recommending the product. I did not feel that she had any need for this policy as her benefits were so strong.
Secondly, she had paid off previous Nat West loans early in the past (2 in fact). Again, this would have to be taken into account, and clearly she was showing a clear pattern of repaying debt early. I felt that it was a very dangerous thing for Nat West to do to sell this product bearing in mind the clients history, as she would suffer financial loss with a policy that had onerous terms for early repayment.
Thirdly, it was an assumed sale - there was no discussion with the client to her requirements, and they simply added the insurance to the loan.

The case was put on hold due to the JR, so we went to the FOS with it, as none of those issues were being argued in the JR itself and Nat West had placed an unlawful hold on the case.

The adjudication came out around a week or so ago - and the complaint was declined. All of these points were commented upon by the adjudicator, and she agreed with what we said, however she ruled that Nat West had sold her policy on a non advised basis and therefore did not have to take these factors into account. She said this was further evidenced by the absence of a SDN.

I have to be honest, when I read it, I flipped my lid and I sent her the snottiest email that I've ever sent. I then decided to take it further and lodge a complaint against her - I heard back from her line manager last week and had a lenghty conversation with him on the phone. The next bit you will love and it will probably shock you - and I've also got this admission in writing:

He stated that obviously in some cases the outcome was disappointing for the consumer blah, blah, blah, however, due to the JR, adjudicators had been working on other complaints which have a much higher decline rate than PPI. Basically, because of this factor, uphold rates for PPI had also dropped as this mentality was also being applied to PPI cases (I'm not making this up!), and as such, uphold rates on ppi products were also now considerably lower.

My first question to him was - why the hell did you bother turning up for the JR then, and just saved us all the bother and the work of bringing the case to you in the first place? He didn't comment.

Now, I've gone back to the original adjudicator with a monster of a submission and I think I've blown her out of the water. I've finely detailed the ICOB breaches, and even if the sale was done on a non advised basis, why the complaint should be upheld. I also got in there that Nat West had breached the Principle Rules in selling the policy (surely even the FOS can remember that coming up in the JR!), and if Nat West have only got one type of these policies (which they do), how the hell did my client based on what shes told me, go into Nat West for a loan and walk out of there with a loan and a ppi policy and there wasn't any form of recommendation?

What really grates me is that the case, as far as I can see, is open and shut. Why should my client have to wait another 2 - 3 years for an Ombudsmans decision? I think it's scandalous whats going on in there at the moment. I think the days of the FOS being the consumers pal are long gone. It may well be the case that they're fed up of the whole ppi scandal, but there is something seriously amiss in there and I haven't submitted a case to them since January - personally, I think I stand a better chance waiting for the lender to give me a final response.

TBD.

[leclerc]

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

Hear, Hear!!!!

I'm very cynical of everything at present, but I'm incredibly wary of the FOS at the current time and I honestly believe that there is a hidden agenda there against claimants, and in particular, CMC's.

I'm a CMC, and I think I'm one of the better ones out there and do the job properly, and I've had EVERY decision go against me since the JR started - frustrating is not the word. It's got so bad that I've lodged a complaint about the service ny clients are receiving, and clearly stated on the bottom of it that I feel that there is something seriously amiss at the FOS, and some of the decisions that we've seen are a total disgrace. It may well be that the FOS don't like CMC's, however, that doesn't mean that my clients should have to suffer.

I've had around 15 adjudictions go against my clients, and all of the complaints were shoo ins. All of the big mis-sells were in there - pre-existing meds, self employed, full employer benefits etc etc., and none of them deemed to be mis-sold. To be frank, if the FOS don't think these weren't mis-sells, then I don't think that they're fit for purpose.

Let me just give you an example of what we seem to be up against, which is the last one I received:

I've got a client who was sold a lump sum policy by Nat West in April, 2007. She was consolidating an existing Nat West loan (which also had ppi), was full time employed as a civil servant for 20 years with full employee benefits. Based on what she told me during our initial interview, she was not given any information regarding the ppi, but the adviser quoted her a monthly repayment of £X for a fully protected loan which would cover the loan repayments if she couldn't work. There were a few minor points in there that also pointed to a mis-sell, but that was the gist of the case.

I argued that firstly, as the sale was goverened by ICOB, the adviser should have taken her employee benefits and length of employment into account before recommending the product. I did not feel that she had any need for this policy as her benefits were so strong.
Secondly, she had paid off previous Nat West loans early in the past (2 in fact). Again, this would have to be taken into account, and clearly she was showing a clear pattern of repaying debt early. I felt that it was a very dangerous thing for Nat West to do to sell this product bearing in mind the clients history, as she would suffer financial loss with a policy that had onerous terms for early repayment.
Thirdly, it was an assumed sale - there was no discussion with the client to her requirements, and they simply added the insurance to the loan.

The case was put on hold due to the JR, so we went to the FOS with it, as none of those issues were being argued in the JR itself and Nat West had placed an unlawful hold on the case.

The adjudication came out around a week or so ago - and the complaint was declined. All of these points were commented upon by the adjudicator, and she agreed with what we said, however she ruled that Nat West had sold her policy on a non advised basis and therefore did not have to take these factors into account. She said this was further evidenced by the absence of a SDN.

"fully protected means that she was not given the full facts, ie that it was optional. Did they have the "Duty of Care" Checklist attached to the loan, have you checked their paperwork are in order, ie any printed documents are from the day that the loan was taken out and not added later? Has she signed to state she wanted the loan with PPI(my understanding is that the DOCC were in operation in 2007.

I have to be honest, when I read it, I flipped my lid and I sent her the snottiest email that I've ever sent. I then decided to take it further and lodge a complaint against her - I heard back from her line manager last week and had a lenghty conversation with him on the phone. The next bit you will love and it will probably shock you - and I've also got this admission in writing:

He stated that obviously in some cases the outcome was disappointing for the consumer blah, blah, blah, however, due to the JR, adjudicators had been working on other complaints which have a much higher decline rate than PPI. Basically, because of this factor, uphold rates for PPI had also dropped as this mentality was also being applied to PPI cases (I'm not making this up!), and as such, uphold rates on ppi products were also now considerably lower.



My first question to him was - why the hell did you bother turning up for the JR then, and just saved us all the bother and the work of bringing the case to you in the first place? He didn't comment.

Now, I've gone back to the original adjudicator with a monster of a submission and I think I've blown her out of the water. I've finely detailed the ICOB breaches, and even if the sale was done on a non advised basis, why the complaint should be upheld. I also got in there that Nat West had breached the Principle Rules in selling the policy (surely even the FOS can remember that coming up in the JR!), and if Nat West have only got one type of these policies (which they do), how the hell did my client based on what shes told me, go into Nat West for a loan and walk out of there with a loan and a ppi policy and there wasn't any form of recommendation?
If there had been a recommendation I would have classed that as advice but as they stated it was "fully advised" then that is clearly misselling.

What really grates me is that the case, as far as I can see, is open and shut. Why should my client have to wait another 2 - 3 years for an Ombudsmans decision? I think it's scandalous whats going on in there at the moment. I think the days of the FOS being the consumers pal are long gone. It may well be the case that they're fed up of the whole ppi scandal, but there is something seriously amiss in there and I haven't submitted a case to them since January - personally, I think I stand a better chance waiting for the lender to give me a final response.

TBD.

The length of time does not surprise me as there are thousands of cases but if they are simply declining cases without merit then that is pretty ridiculous.

[The_Big_Dog]

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

Agreed Leclerc,

I think that I'm a reasonably level mided person, and I don't think that this is in my imagination - the FOS are declining cases without merit and I don't think that they are acting in their capacity as an independent arbitrator of complaints at the present time. I speak to a lot of CMC's and they're all coming out with similar type of stories.

Coming back to this complaint, when we send off a complaint, we ask for the lender to either accept liability, or if they decline, then we ask for a pre-action disclosure request. In our PADR, we ask for the documentation that they are relying upon. With the JR, they declined to show us any paperwork relating to the sale when they put the case on hold. Our client didn't have a DOCC in her paperwork so it looks like the only one who's seen it (if there is one), is the FOS. As of yet, they haven't supplied us with it. There may be one, however, in our submission back to the FOS, I've argued that it's completely irrelevant in this case whether Nat West conducted the sale on an advised or non-advised basis, as the sale of such a policy when they were in full knowledge of the facts was a breach of Principles and they didn't treat our customer fairly as they had full knowledge that the policy would have been unsuitable for our client before selling it. In addition, the first that we've heard that there is doubt whether it was a non-advised sale or advised was in the adjudication. Certainly, our client wasn't aware of it. In their open letter, one of the common failings was that lenders didn't make it clear whether the sale was advised or non-advised - which I feel this case falls under, yet, the adjudicator seems to have ignored this as well. The FOS's mandate is to express an opinion which is Fair and Reasonable. There's very little evidence of that in their current adjudications.

Finally, I'm aware of a meeting that took place last month between the FOS and some of the larger CMC's. I wasn't there, but I've heard what was discussed and had it corroborrated by other people present. In the chair for the FOS was their Operations Director, Tony Boorman. What he asked for was the CMC's to stop referring cases to them as they were so overwhelmed, and interestingly, he added that 'he didn't have to accept them'. Further on in the meeting, he stated that the FOS would pay little regard to ICOB breaches that CMC's cited in their complaints, and all the FOS wanted to do was get the clients version of events.

Now, are these the actions of a director of a body who is meant to be impartial? I'd argue that they aren't.

Like CMC's or loathe them, we act on behalf of clients who either dont want to take on their bank, or they haven't got the time to do so. It is a requirement of MoJ Authorised Persons Rules of Conduct that you have to make clear to the client that they can do this themselves, which I do on every case - bar none. My clients make an informed choice and it's their decision.

Now, coming to my role. I have to earn that 20% that I charge. I don't expect the lender to cough up on one template letter (however, a few do). I don't use templates - I write each letter to the clients exact circumstances and point out to the lender where breaches have occurred and why the product was unsuitable for the client. If the lender disagrees, then we'll escalate to the FOS if we feel that we have a case. Some of the arguments can be quite complex dependent on the case and, its fair to say, that the majority of my clients aren't financially knowledgeable and a lot of them would have difficulty in putting some arguments across. However, what is bothering me is that the FOS are basically stating that they'll virtually ignore what I've got to say and ask the client for their version of events, and presumably, adjudicate on what the client tells them. Can you imagine the outcry if a Judge turned around in a Courtroom to a Defendant and said 'Listen matey, I don't care what your Brief says - I'm just going to listen to what you've got to say and then I'll make my Judgment on the weight of that'. But it seems that it's ok for the FOS to do it.

I'll give you a point in question. MBNA's older policies were underwirtten my ITT going back to early 2000ish. The policy would only pay 3% of the card balance each month, which at the time, was MBNA's minimum payment. Crucially, the preium did not include waiver, so the client still had to pay the premiums even though they were claiming, so they were out of pocket each month eventhough they were successfully claiming - the product itself was flawed before you even look for any onerous terms in the small print of the policy. There is no way a non financially knowledgeable person would know that or know how to argue the point. Theres a huge amount of people out there walking around with PPI who don't even know they've been mis-sold and it's up to either websites such as this, or CMC's to inform them of their rights. However, if they use a Professional, and I'll use the term loosely, then for the FOS to turn around and state, well, we'll ignore what you've got to say and we'll just speak to your client - then there's not a lot of point in using me is there? Is that the actions of an independent arbitrator? I don't think so.

Another one of these types of argument which I regularly clash on with the FOS is Nat West credit cards. If anyones got their T&C's to hand, see if you can find anywhere, either on the paperwork or the policy document where it states you've got to pay for the PPI and the cost of it. It isn't there, they've omitted it totally. Nat West forgot to put in their policy docs or their paperwork that the client has to pay for PPI - I think it's unfair and it's misleading, and in no way does that put the client in a position to understand the true nature of the contract they're entering into. What I see from the adjudicators is that our clients should know there's a cost for it because it's detailed on their monthly statement. Eventhough I'll argue like hell with them that Nat West have misrepresented the cost to the client and invited them into a contract excluding price terms - they just don't want to know.

It worries me what the FOS are currently up to. It's my belief that they've got a hidden agenda to push every CMC into bankruptcy and get rid of us all. It really angers me and frustrated is not the word. Firstly, I'll fight like hell for my clients - they've been mis-sold and they deserve compensation. Secondly, I have bills to pay like everybody else. Unfortunately, at the moment due to cash flow, I'm unable to do that. If the FOS have got a problem with CMC's, and they don't like what they're doing, then report them to the MoJ and demand that they get their licences revoked and let the rest of us get on with it and carry on doing, what I think, is a good job for our clients.

Rant over!

TBD.

[The_Big_Dog]

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

Actually, no - the rant isn't over, because the more I write about this, the angrier I'm becoming.

One thing that has struck me in the middle of all the JR is how the Regulatory Bodies and Authorities are acting in a completely different manner to what they have actually stated that they want.

Let's first of all take the FSA. They bought PS10/12 into existance in the first place because they wanted better control handling. Ok - I've got no problems with that, but they were totally unprepared for the BBA's onslaught. The FSA knew it was a real possibility that legal action could be bought, a point which was mentioned in their July minutes. When this started, I honestly thought that they'd bring the banks to heel, but other than issue a couple of letters, they did very little during the JR proceedings. I constantly pressed Hector Sants during November for a meeting, but I could only go as far as his PA and all my emails and letters that were addressed to him personally were answered by one of his flunkies. We've come to the end of the JR, and what do the FSA do? They give waivers to the poor banks because they've got backlogs. If you actually think logically about what they've done - it's unbelievable. They've been involved in a long running dispute, which they won hands down. Rather than now cracking the whip, they've rolled over for the banks yet again. I'm sorry, the banks in disarray is no concern of mine, nor is it my clients concern. The question that the FSA should be answering is 'Why have you given 4 banks a waiver when they should have implemented PS10/12 on the 1st of December, 2011 and now the legal proccedings have been completed, why aren't they in a position to issue Final Responses as DISP dictates?'. The FSA are receiving so many letters of complaint from CMC's that they've now devised a template letter to send back.

As Hector and his pals didn't want to know, I then lobbied my MP. I met with him at the end of November, presented him with a report, and I specifically asked him to ask questions in the House - which he refused to do so as he felt that it would not be appropriate to do so due to legal proceedings. He did however, state that he would forward my report to the Treasury.

That report went to every MP in the country. I thought that Vince Cable might have had a sniff at it being he was Business Secretary and his stance on banks - but not one MP had the courtesy to reply.

I had a reply from Mark Hoban, the Minister in charge of the Treasury at the end of February. He stated in his letter that my report had been passed to him by George Osbourn, so the Chancellor had read it, but his reply gave very little away and certainly didn't mention any action that the Treasury were going to make - another door shut.

I've covered the FOS's stance in an earlier post.

I also know that the CSC (Claims Standard Council) has done a lot of sterling work in attempting to get the Regulator to step in over the past few months, but they, like me, have had very little success.

It's a total shambles at the moment and the reality is; very little is coming by way of Final Response 8 weeks after the JR was completed. I really want to know what contingency plans the Regulator has in place come the end of August if the banks stick 2 fingers up at everyone again - I think that thers a danger of this happening, and this is now the next big battleground that we need to win and get clarification on. (This only seems to apply though if you're living in the real world - if you listen to Martyn Lewis, everything is hunky dory and banks are paying out - have a read of his column in the News of the World this morning. My personal opinion is if he doesn't know whats going on then he should keep his trap shut untill he knows all the facts).

Rant over for now!

TBD.

[mosten]

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

Superb insight from those last few posts... thankyou


1)I have couple of nagging doubts on what is really going on behind the scenes..


Imagine you are the bank.. Your average refund for PPI per case is say 2000..

Lets say then over 10 cases you are looking at 20,000 if you pay out...

Any case that gets referred to the FOS costs extra 500 per case if found out mis-sold (correct me if that wrong)


Why not just wait till August 31st , reject all 10 cases then and send letter to each claimant saying if you are not happy with response then go to the FOS..

Estimate 3- 4 of those ten will not bother since they think, either, cant be bothered, the bank must be right, don't know how to complain to the FOS or I'll do it tomorrow and never get round to it...


Of the 6 that go to the FOS, looking at uphold rates now, maybe only 3 you end up having to pay out on and not for another 1- 2yrs since the FOS are in such a state.

Now , I'm only paying out 2000 x 3 plus 3 lots of 500 for the fees so 7500 instead of 20,000....

Rough figures I know, but thats the gist of it...



2) Martin Lewis and also Which really are getting my back up at minute...

Every website or GMTV / BBC statement he/they do on this sounds so mis-leading...

From which website: (You may be approached by a claims management company who will offer to pursue your complaint. Bear in mind that they will take a cut of any money you may receive from your PPI provider. As it is so easy to put in your own complaint, you shouldn't need to use one of these companies.

Martin Lewis is constantly heard saying " It's easy now the banks have thrown the towel in " ... Please get real.. The towel is now been swirled, the end of it wet and it's being used to flick the backside of anyone trying to take their money off them !!!

The banks , from what I gather are still trying every means possible to wriggle out of as many claims as they can.. They have shareholders they are accountable to, profits to protect ...

I have heard several people say that they are going to try and Do it themselves from what they have read or heard from MSE and Which..


Now, therefore, the person on the street , (who doesn't know about the resources of this site) will have to try and complain to the same company THAT RIPPED THEM OFF in the first place to get a refund of their PPI.

They will have to construct a letter of claim, with all the reason why they were mis-sold it, send it to the correct department, keep a track on when the lender should respond by, what to do if they don't, what to do once the usual rejection letter finally comes out etc etc


Imagine again your the bank... You have a letter from an individual that seems a bit wishy washy in what they are saying or you have another from a CMC who usually know what they are talking about and you know will not lie down.. Who do you send the fob off letter to and which one do you uphold...?



Even if claim is upheld, the bank may even make them a "goodwill" offer which may be way below the actual compensation figure they should be entitled to... The person in the street prob wont be able to work out the real amount, especially if it involves top up loans..

Rant over too... for now




i

[The_Big_Dog]

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

Mosten,

I'm with you all the way on what you're saying. The Martyn Lewis/Which reporting is so one sided and it seems that all of them, now the JR has been concluded, have suddenly jumped onto the CMC bashing wagon.

As I've said before, it's a requirement of MoJ Rules that you have to make it clear to clients that theycan do it themselves if they so wish, so I've got no issue with Which or Martyn Lewis stating the fact, because they'll hear it from me anyway. Where the problem lies is that they're claiming that reclaiming is now easy to do, and that the bank will just roll over on one letter. This isn't the case. I know it's causing havoc with CMC's, because I know they're getting phonecall after phonecall from clients wanting to know where the hell their money is because they've just watched GMTV and the guy on there said it was easy now to win.

There's even a discussion on one of the MSE threads at the moment how to get out of a contract signed with a CMC because they've received a letter from First Plus stating they're going to settle as a gesture of goodwill - I think it's a sad state of affairs if we've come to this. The poster is stating quite clearly, what they're doing is 'naughty', and they're getting replies of do this, do that - don't give away your money because they've done nothing for you.

I posted somewhere the other day that we should all co-ordinate action and all the CMC's and consumer groups should get together, put their differences to one side, and hit the banks for 6 by simultaniously issuing N1's and flooding the banks legal department. Someone replied with a very good argument why that wouldn't work, which was noted. The poster also asked - what differences? Well, the differences are that a lot of consumer websites are so anti CMC, that if you post in them you get a mountain of abuse or vilified. I won't post on CAG or MSE anymore, eventhough I used to, because I got bored of the anti CMC sentiment on there. You try and give someone a bit of help and you get derided for it and get dragged into an argument about being an ambulance chaser, vulture, shark etc.

I haven't long posted on here, because I've just kept to reading the posts and keeping my mouth shut - however, what is great about LB is that you have a number of level headed people, who are here to debate and express opinions and not get dragged into petty squabbles.

TBD.

[pompeyfaith]

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

TBG,

Excellent posts Thank you, I have always though that the Government was getting involved where they should not and your last few posts backs up my view.

If you think about it and the banks and Government have known this for some time they will both be taking a very large hit in the comings months due to euro problems and Greece furthermore the economy is not working how they believe it should with the low interest rates.

Remember with securitization debt is profit to the banks and with the low interest rates on mortgages and loans they just are not making money.

Indeed the cost of a wide PPI payout is a large sum of money that they need to save, furthermore with the ring fencing of consumer banking and the larger pit of money they must have to shield from tomorrows financial wrongs the banks are running around like headless chickens wondering where to cut back.

Regards

[leclerc]

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

TBG, have you read EXC's post with regards to N1's? Can I ask you to comment on what was written in the article that was posted?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
For clarity, it's this post:
Legal Beagles Consumer Forum - View Single Post - Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

[pompeyfaith]

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

TBD,

As for ambulance chasers not my word btw we are living in a democratic society and that comes with it CMC are not the first and will not be the last just look at the accident claims companies that have popped up.

I have nothing against CMC if they do not charge upfront and do a good job because as you have said not all of us can do a complaint/claim so there is a place for them but as I say only the decent and fair CMC's.

[mosten]

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

I've thought its similar to if your car plays up

If your car breaks down, yes you can go and get a Haynes Manuel and do it all your self...

Or you pay a mechanic to do it if its too difficult or you haven't got the time or can't be bothered...

I would have though most CMC's contracts, once the 14 days cooling off period has gone, would be fairly watertight.. Usually have some clause in there regards so much per hour for their time if client canx or deals privately with the lender...

I also haven't got a problem about MSE and WHICH stating you can TRY and do it yourself but please give them more info on this regards the tricks the banks will try, the time-scales involved, not all claims the same, etc etc...



They are, in my opinion causing a lot of problems for the people in the street in the next couple of months...The situation will arise where person in street see article on BBC with them saying its easy, just write to bank lender and complain...


Person, not really understanding the whole process since they believe that's all they have to do now write to their bank..

Dear Mr/Mrs bank,

Please refund my Ppi becasue er, um, er.... you didn't really explain what it was to me..

Thankyou


28 days later, letter arrives, thankyou Mr person in street, we at the bank have fully investigated your complaint and find in our favour.. Don't like it, take it to FOS where it disappears into a black hole for 18mths


Person calls up CMC.. ok, i've had a go, now you take over...

What can the CMC do then...? Can't really complain to the bank again, dear mr bank, our client didnt really understand what he was on about and made some mistakes.. What he meant to say was, he had pre exisistng medical conditions, , was NHS staff, already had other methods of repayments if he ever lost his job, etc etc


The advice on telly an in news of the world etc is only giving half the story...


Sometimes half the info is more dangerous then none at all..


My motto from now on is this..


“Fighting with a bank is like fighting with a gorilla. You don't stop when you're tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.”

[The_Big_Dog]

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

TBG, have you read EXC's post with regards to N1's? Can I ask you to comment on what was written in the article that was posted?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
For clarity, it's this post:
Legal Beagles Consumer Forum - View Single Post - Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

EXC's absolutely spot on. There's very little, other than Yates, actually winning in Court - which is suprising bearing in mind the amount of publicity surrounding the JR and PPI in particular.

Here's an eye opening summary for anyone to read before commencing Court proceedings:

http://www.wragge.com/analysis_6944.asp

If you walk into a Courtroom - you're going to come up against this lot - particularly if you're going after Black Horse. It's not encouraging reading.

What my thoughts were is that if the banks want to play dirty, then so can we, but we need to do it in big numbers. Use a specific date, and everyone issues - bring the Banks Legal Departments to their knees and get Judgment by default because they won't be able to acknowledge service or submit defences within the due dates with sheer numbers hitting them - possibly a Big Dog mad moment, but an idea. I wasn't actually suggesting that everyone issues for a day out in Court - just as a way to play dirty if the need arose.

However, my crazy ideas aside, I don't advocate ANYONE issuing proceedings at the moment because it does look as though Judges are not looking sympathetically at ppi claims at the present. If only we had a Sir Brian Walter Ouseley in every County Court.......