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

[MrZ]

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

And while you're at it you could do worse than tell Marc Gander, contrary to what he advised on the BBC website.....

''This is where you will learn the ropes and it is free.
Do not pay much attention to the story that you can only claim for the previous six years.
You are probably claiming for the return of money paid under a mistake.
For money paid by mistake, you usually have six years from the date you became aware of the mistake. So make your claim as far back as you want.''

BBC News - PPI: How to reclaim your premiums


.....is in fact garbage....

''Therefore, Mr Holyoak said that he should be allowed to take advantage of the extended limitation periods for (a) negligence claims afforded by section 14 (A) of the 1980 Act (3 years from the date when the claimant knew or ought to have known material facts about the loss suffered) or (b) claims in respect of relief from the consequences of mistake under section 32 of the 1980 Act (the limitation period not beginning to run until the claimant discovered the mistake).''


''District Judge Loomba, sitting in Sunderland County Court, considered Lloyds’ submission that section 14A of the 1980 Act only applied to actions founded on negligence and did not apply so as to save the misrepresentation claim. He agreed and held that Mr Holyoak’s claims arising under in relation to the 2004 agreement and the policy were “statute barred”. ''



Time called on PPI mis-selling - Lexology


......and after week when you'll see that his BBC advice remains unaltered, come back here and try to convince us he's not knowingly giving misleading advice.

I certainly dont want to mediate between what apparently is a long standing issue here.

But I must comment that the FOS does take the position that the 6 year limit should not be used as a reason for a lender to flatly refuse to uphold a complaint for mis-sold PPI. We all know that the FOS does not adjudicate the law. The FOS position has no bearing on how a court will apply the law.

So in truth, a claim can be made via the FOS even if beyond the 6 year limit. Making that same claim in court however may be a different matter.

To say that the 6 year limit does not apply to all claims whether made to the FOS or through the courts is not true. Neither is it true to say it does.

I am not taking any sides in this issue that apparently has roots deeper than I first realised. Either way its unfortunate. But I stand by my opinion that certain comments arent appropriate as "passing remarks", and if the underlying issue is of real importance and warrants users being made aware, perhaps a thread dedicated to the underlying issue would be the best.

[EXC]

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

I am not taking any sides in this issue that apparently has roots deeper than I first realised. Either way its unfortunate. But I stand by my opinion that certain comments arent appropriate as "passing remarks", and if the underlying issue is of real importance and warrants users being made aware, perhaps a thread dedicated to the underlying issue would be the best.

Let's get one thing straight shall we?

One of the primary functions of this or any other consumer forum is to strive to protect consumers from potential detriment from organisations - whoever they may be.

If it is demonstrable that an organisation poses a risk to consumers - which includes those giving clearly and unambiguously inaccurate legal advice that has a genuine potential to not only scupper a claimant’s case but result in being liable for substantial costs - then I would consider it an abdication of my responsibility as a fellow forum member not to draw attention to it.

And I shall do this in a location of my choosing and in a manner as I see fit.

Is that clear enough for you?

[dogtired]

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




Got this today never paid them a bean so how can they "cease" collection activity?

Written to BOS again and e-mailed the CEO!!
My did not know I had it in me!:tinysmile_hmm_t2:
They want eight weeks to pay me bac the ppi yet stll "sell" it!!
DTxx

[StrayPup]

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

MBNA Claim Status

Having had a result on the Virgin Card claim, I was awaiting same on the MBNA. However, 3 or 4 weeks ago I got a rejection (final), showing that I had apparently ticked the PPI box on the application form and that they felt that I had not shown that I had any other provision for making the payments in place in case of illness, etc.

I had already "warmed up" the FOS by phone some weeks before during the JR (and got a ref number from them), so I refered it to them pronto with all the paperwork.

I felt a bit relaxed about it for a few reasons and resigned myself to a long haul with the FOS, but some curious events happened:

FOS got my formal complaint and said they would get back to me within a month - surprising so quick.

Got a letter last week from MBNA (no FOS leaflet in it this time) with a new reference number saying they are looking into the matter - strange since I had received a "final" letter from them before! And then another letter from them today apologising for the delay and promising to reply by 9/9. What is going on?

I wasn't too concerned about the situation because I believe MBNA did not even look at the (FOS) questionnaire that I had to send them recently. In it I reminded them that (I did not know at the time that this ppi box was apparently ticked) as a 50% owner/deirector of my company that it was dubious whether I could have claimed on the PPI in any case, and that I would be paid by the company in any case if I was sick. And moreover that even if I had ticked the box it stated that PPI was "strongly recommended" which I believe counts as an "advised" sale according to the FOS [FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Case study .[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']The thought occurred to me, which prompted this current post was, given that MBNA knew that I had already have a PPI with another card of their's, doesn't that count has evidence that any other PPI sale would be unwarranted?!![/FONT]

[leclerc]

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

No business ever really knows if you had a PPI policy with another part of the company unless they ask you. That might suggest that the way it was sold meant that the full picture of your financial situation was not either understood properly by the seller or that they simply didn't ask the question at all.

[EXC]

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

Got a letter last week from MBNA (no FOS leaflet in it this time) with a new reference number saying they are looking into the matter - strange since I had received a "final" letter from them before! And then another letter from them today apologising for the delay and promising to reply by 9/9. What is going on?

It's quite possible that your case is being looked at due to the FSA's Root Cause Analysis requirements in the Policy Statement, whereby they are required to investigate tranches of sales that have a high complaint rate.

[StrayPup]

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

I appreciate that, a company at the time might not know at the time about other credit cards details, but it still remains that there is a duplication of cover.

But curiously recently, in these complaints, both cases were cross referenced so they know about each other. I seem to recall that when I used to phone them up many years ago there was occasionally some mix up as to what card (Virgin or MBNA) that I was referring to.

[leclerc]

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

I appreciate that, a company at the time might not know at the time about other credit cards details, but it still remains that there is a duplication of cover.
That's not necessarily the case since the PPI policy would cover just the loan or the credit card it came under. Two PPI policies at the same time does not mean you are double covered. You have to argue both the advice on a non advised sale and the fact that you had cover elsewhere.
But curiously recently, in these complaints, both cases were cross referenced so they know about each other. I seem to recall that when I used to phone them up many years ago there was occasionally some mix up as to what card (Virgin or MBNA) that I was referring to.

Even if they knew you had two PPI policies on two products, the PPI product itself is only covering the loan or credit card that it pertained to. The double coverage argument with regards to PPI(ie that one PPI policy on the credit card covers the loan or viceversa) simply does not exist. The Double coverage where you have other cover, for example, death in service benefit crosses off death cover is a valid one.

[EXC]

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

'Time called on PPI mis-selling'.

[leclerc]

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

It just goes to show that the FOS is perhaps the place to go with claims.
Of course you could take another sites viewpoint that "Even that is almost a waste time because the Ombudsman has got no bottle deal seriously with any of the banks"(A Wilson), but the court may take a viewpoint that will lose you everything.

Before anyone asks the question, oh yes I do have underlying reasons with regards to the quoted site but the point remains that going to court on PPI can potentially be extremely tricky and some issues, whilst tardisome, may be better dealt with through the FOS

[cappo]

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

'Time called on PPI mis-selling'.

this is a very surprising view for the court to take especially since the verdict on the jr,which was also a court ruling.

[cappo]

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

Wollerton v Blackhorse
Yates v Nemo
Thorius v MBNA

I am sure there are many others that have either settled or were decided in the county court and have been unreported.

If the banks were winning the majority of claims, their PR guru's would be having a field day. The lenders keep relying on the same old arguments and these arguments are being defeated.

Regarding slagging off other sites/fora I am also remembering your comment in post 4189

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...postcount=4189

All I am saying is these sort of comments are not helpful to anyone.

Mr Z i don't come onto this site much now but as you are all aware i believe that everyone has there right to there own opinion, i don't want an argument but i firmly agree with EXC here, as we have always maintained on here this should not be a site where characters are assassinated as such, i think that if someone is given "bad" or "wrong" info it doesnt help. Saying that we do maintain on all the sites that info given should not be taken as legal advice.

[EXC]

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

It doesn't surprise me at all Cappo.

The JR was all about the application of complaints handling rules and not about the legalities of mis-selling PPI. It just goes to show that when these cases are heard in court, documentative evidence is king. And that the FOS is a better medium to settle PPI disputes because unlike the courts they will ultimately find on what, in there opinion, is fair and reasonable.

[Angry Cat]

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

It doesn't surprise me at all Cappo.

The JR was all about the application of complaints handling rules and not about the legalities of mis-selling PPI. It just goes to show that when these cases are heard in court, documentative evidence is king. And that the FOS is a better medium to settle PPI disputes because unlike the courts they will ultimately find on what, in there opinion, is fair and reasonable.

I am similar to cappo, in that now rarely comment.
However, the FOS often leaves one feeling unimpressed....

[EXC]

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

However, the FOS often leaves one feeling unimpressed....

They're not the quickest in town but unlike the court service they are free (both in terms cost and risk), require little effort to use, consider claims more than 6 years old and have a high uphold rate.