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

[dogtired]

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

[quote=dogtired;222482]Need some advice peeps on a store card.
Can you claim back "payment cover" on this?
Did a CCA for my other half and got a very poor copy of the original application form and a single sheet which they claim is a "screen shot" with no dates on it, will try and upload them tomorrow when I am back near my scanner but the copy application form is a disgrace, almost illegible they say the "no" box is ticked but its just marked all over so its not very clear.
The only way round it I think is to do a full SAR but he does not want to do that, says just leave it but I do not want to do that
The copies are really that bad

[leclerc]

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

This is it

(oh, and BTW dont forget its 16 weeks for the extended timescale!)

even if they didnt have the advanced systems and amount of people at their disposal, it should be carried out quicker than 8 weeks to make a payment

This needs addressing by the media

Having spoken to an ombudsman the issue is about the definition of promptly within the Dispensation rules. What may appear prompt to you and I may not be the same and the definition may change over time. With thousands and thousands of complaints 8 weeks is not necessarily excessive in timescale however if other factors are pressing, ie debt collection agents from the bank hassling you for money(explain PPI complaint to them if pending) or real financial hardship then 8 weeks could cause further detriment to the individual and would therefore be unfair. If the award is via the FOS you are gaining 8% interest on the compensation up to the date it is paid so those 8 weeks are benefiting the customer to a degree.

[EXC]

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

Santander profits hit by PPI mis-selling costs


Santander has set aside 620m euros (£548m) to cover the costs of mis-selling payment protection insurance (PPI) in the UK.

The Spanish bank is the latest to outline the one-off amount to cover the cost of compensation for mis-selling the loan insurance.

Lloyds Banking Group set aside £3.2bn to cover the cost of this compensation, followed by Barclays (£1bn), RBS (£850m) and HSBC (£269m).
The move hit Santander's profits.

The UK arm of the bank - which includes the Abbey, Alliance and Leicester and Bradford and Bingley brands - saw pre-tax profits dip 3% to £1.2bn in the six months to June.

The parent company Banco Santander reported a first-half net profit of 3.5 billion euros, down 21%.

Legal wrangle
PPI is supposed to cover loan repayments if someone becomes ill or loses their job, but it has emerged that many of the policies sold by the banks were mis-sold.

In April, the banking industry lost its High Court challenge to new rules on the sale of PPI.

Among other things, the rules require sellers of PPI polices to review all their past sales to see if their customers have a claim for mis-selling, whether or not they have actually complained.

While the legal case was going on the banks put on hold tens of thousands of fresh PPI complaints that came in.

Santander was second, behind Barclays, in the list of most complained-about financial institutions during the second half of 2010.

The data, compiled by the City watchdog - the Financial Services Authority - was driven, in part, by PPI complaints.

Santander chief executive Ana Botin said the bank had taken significant steps to improve customer service.

Earlier in July, Santander said it had brought its call centres back to the UK from India following complaints.

"In line with other UK banks, a further provision for payment protection insurance remediation has also been made," Ms Botin said.

"Notwithstanding these factors, Santander UK has delivered profit in the first six months, maintaining its strong track record of profitability and strengthening its balance sheet."


BBC News - Santander profits hit by PPI mis-selling costs

[EXC]

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

[quote=dogtired;222533]

Need some advice peeps on a store card.
Can you claim back "payment cover" on this?
Did a CCA for my other half and got a very poor copy of the original application form and a single sheet which they claim is a "screen shot" with no dates on it, will try and upload them tomorrow when I am back near my scanner but the copy application form is a disgrace, almost illegible they say the "no" box is ticked but its just marked all over so its not very clear.
The only way round it I think is to do a full SAR but he does not want to do that, says just leave it but I do not want to do that
The copies are really that bad

The documents seam to indicate that there was no payment cover in place - or have I misunderstood?

[stevesouth33]

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

I had a really interesting chat with a guy from the 'redress team' at the FOS yesterday. Over a week ago I got an email from an adjudicator to say that MBNA had decided to pay redress in line with the FOS guidelines. The adjudicator told me that she was passing my complaint over to a different team and they would be in touch to give me more detail about the settlement.

Having heard nothing from the FOS since then I rang them yesterday and got put through to the 'redress' team. The chap I spoke to said that I should expect to get a letter from the FOS within the next four weeks, I asked why it would take four weeks and he said that the agreement they had with the banks was that they had to release upheld complaints in such a way as not to overload the banks. So in this regard MBNA were being given complaints in 'waves'. So I then asked what would be in the letter and he said that would contain the contact details for MBNA and also include the guidelines that the redress would be calculated from.

So I said I already knew the contact details for MBNA and I already knew the guidelines for redress so was it ok to contact MBNA to accept the offer. He said no to that and then clarified that at this first stage in the redress process I could not agree to the redress as the first stage is to agree to allow MBNA to calculate the redress. I said to him at this point that it would be very unlikely for anyone ever to say no to allowing them to calculate the redress, which he agreed to but said that was the process, and that the business had upon me accepting their offer to calculate redress 10 weeks to do so. They would then have a further 8 weeks in which upon acceptance of their offer to pay out that settlement. So crudely speaking that would therefore mean that from the point of agreeing to pay redress the FOS will take four weeks to communicate information that I had already the business then has 18 weeks in which to calculate and pay the redress which amounts in total to 22 weeks.

Much as I support the fact that they should operate to reasonable timescales, I think that this is particularly the 4 weeks for the FOS but more so the 10 weeks to calculate the redress (should not take more than 5 minutes) is taking the ****. If it were not for the fact that this means another 22 weeks worth of interest, I would get more annoyed but it really does begin to beg the question as to what exactly the purpose of the FOS is.

[dogtired]

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

[quote=EXC;222647]

The documents seam to indicate that there was no payment cover in place - or have I misunderstood?

This is where we are unsure, the copies are so bad its hard to tell and the other half cannot remember, but just going to chalk it up to experience the account is now paid up and no longer a millstone around his neck and I made him promise not to get another!
DT xx

[JDEH]

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

thanks for that - what did they actually say in writing ?

are you able to put it in writing

What I now think the FOS means is that a reasonable time for payout, considering the current circumstances the banks find themselves in, is eight weeks. However, this is not set in stone and banks seem to have different approaches within this frame work. Yesterday I received two offers - one lender said it would pay out in six weeks, the other in 28 days.
JDEH

[JDEH]

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

What I now think the FOS means is that a reasonable time for payout, considering the current circumstances the banks find themselves in, is eight weeks. However, this is not set in stone and banks seem to have different approaches within this frame work. Yesterday I received two offers - one lender said it would pay out in six weeks, the other in 28 days.
JDEH

And just to make it even vaguer, I have received an approval letter from the FOS today which says: "MBNA will aim to complete the payment within the next eight weeks." (!)
JDEH

[mosten]

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

Cousin told me today that they are seeing steady stream of offers coming through now...

No big landslide of cases but more regular ones

lloydstb 9k
welcome 5k
abbey 3k
etc etc

[EXC]

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

After confidently making a $509m provision for PPI redress in June, HSBC now appear to admit that they haven't got a clue as to what the true figure will be - according to today's interim results:


''On 20 April 2011, the High Court issued an adverse judgement on the Judicial Review application.
Subsequently the BBA, acting on behalf of its members, confirmed that it would not appeal the
judgement. HSBC Bank plc accepts the High Court’s decision and is working with the FSA and the
FOS in order to ensure all PPI complaints are handled and, where appropriate, redressed in
accordance with PS 10/12.''

''There are many factors affecting the resulting financial impact of the judgement, including the
effect of the decision on the nature and volume of customer complaints; and the extent to which
HSBC Bank plc might be required to take action, and the nature of any such action, in relation to
non-complainants. The extent of any redress that may be required as a result of the decision to
uphold PS 10/12 and the FOS Guidance will also depend on the facts and circumstances of each
individual customer’s case. For these reasons, there is currently a high degree of uncertainty as to
the eventual costs of redress for this matter. There is a provision of US$509m as at 30 June 2011 in
respect of the estimated liability for redress in respect of the possible mis-selling of PPI policies in
previous years.''

http://www.hsbc.com/1/PA_1_1_S5/cont...sbc2011irn.pdf

[EXC]

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

Latest edition of Ombudsman News: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...news/95/95.pdf

The key figures are a total of 56,025 PPI complaints received in the last quarter (April, May & June) which is over half of the total for the whole of the previous year.

Uphold rates are down to 55% (from a high of 89% in 09/10) but this is qualified by the refusal of most PPI providers to engage with the FOS and who were receiving many more complaints than they were able to close. But the FOS expect that from now onwards uphold rates will get ''much higher''.

[The Debt Star]

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

STILL nothing from First Direct. Seems they will go to the wire on this one and beyond in all probability. You have to wonder why, since they are going to lose out on interest at the end of the day.

[dogtired]

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

I had a call from FOS today re the two Bank of Scotland, one is upheld but they argue that the other was only covered by "Card Care" both application forms i have as a result of CCA are almost identical but one says "Protection" but mentions "Card Care" and the other just says "Card Care" which is identical in the small print.
She is talking to them again.
I have a feeling they are still trying to get out of it.
The added annoyance that over the weekend I had a letter from Robinson Hall claiming that they are now collecting the Sainsbury one this is dispute me having a letter in my files saying they agreed to a reduced payment plan until September!
Just done a "prove it" letter to send to RH as there was nothing else with this letter but an envelope!
Not sure what this will mean in the grand scheme of things but dispute getting this judgment the banks are still dragging heels!:beagleT

[MBD23]

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

After confidently making a $509m provision for PPI redress in June, HSBC now appear to admit that they haven't got a clue as to what the true figure will be - according to today's interim results:


''On 20 April 2011, the High Court issued an adverse judgement on the Judicial Review application.
Subsequently the BBA, acting on behalf of its members, confirmed that it would not appeal the
judgement. HSBC Bank plc accepts the High Court’s decision and is working with the FSA and the
FOS in order to ensure all PPI complaints are handled and, where appropriate, redressed in
accordance with PS 10/12.''

''There are many factors affecting the resulting financial impact of the judgement, including the
effect of the decision on the nature and volume of customer complaints; and the extent to which
HSBC Bank plc might be required to take action, and the nature of any such action, in relation to
non-complainants. The extent of any redress that may be required as a result of the decision to
uphold PS 10/12 and the FOS Guidance will also depend on the facts and circumstances of each
individual customer’s case. For these reasons, there is currently a high degree of uncertainty as to
the eventual costs of redress for this matter. There is a provision of US$509m as at 30 June 2011 in
respect of the estimated liability for redress in respect of the possible mis-selling of PPI policies in
previous years.''

http://www.hsbc.com/1/PA_1_1_S5/cont...sbc2011irn.pdf

what this means is they will be trying where they can to defend most of them
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Cousin told me today that they are seeing steady stream of offers coming through now...

No big landslide of cases but more regular ones

lloydstb 9k
welcome 5k
abbey 3k
etc etc

welcome and abbey never went on hold

[mosten]

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

BBC News - Lloyds Banking Group pushed into loss by PPI costs

Genuinely do feel sorry for any of the staff in the branches etc who are going to lose their jobs over all these losses.....