• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

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

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    Originally posted by di30 View Post
    ...I've have read other posts OTR today as well about part offers, what's all that about?
    Disp/App/3.7 from the FOS PPI Handbook covers "Alternative Redress" - and I suspect that this will be increasingly used or abused by lenders as a way of reducing the inevitable payouts. Basically, as I read it, IF the 'firm' (the lender) decides to PRESUME that the 'complainant' (the borrower) WOULD have taken out PPI from an alternative provider, then the FOS supports a reduced payout, which is based on the difference between what was charged for the original mis-sold PPI, and what the FOS has decided (in 3.7.13) WOULD have been charged by a cheaper PPI provider.

    Quite possibly, an innocent answer to the FOS questionnaire may be all that is required to implement this, so I think we should be VERY careful with our answers to it.

    I'm not sure if this is actually what is being offered in SKV123's case, but it seems based on a similar principle.

    FSA Handbook - Full Handbook

    Alternative approach to redress: single premium policies

    DISP App 3.7.7
    01/12/2010
    Where the only breach or failing was within DISP App 3.6.2 E (9) and/or DISP App 3.6.2 E (12), and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the firm may presume that instead of buying the single premium payment protection contract he bought, the complainant would have bought a regular premium payment protection contract.
    DISP App 3.7.8
    01/12/2010
    If a firm chooses to make this presumption, then it should do so fairly and for all relevant complainants in a relevant category of sale. It should not, for example, only use the approach for those complainants it views as being a lower underwriting risk or those complainants who have cancelled their policies.
    DISP App 3.7.9
    01/12/2010
    Where the firm presumes that the complainant would have purchased a regular premium payment protection contract, the firm should offer redress that puts the complainant in the position he would have been if he had bought an alternative regular premium payment protection contract.
    DISP App 3.7.10
    01/12/2010
    The firm should pay to the complainant a sum equal to the amount in DISP App 3.7.3 E less the amount the complainant would have paid for the alternative regular premium payment protection contract.
    DISP App 3.7.11
    01/12/2010
    The firm should consider whether it is appropriate to deduct the value of any paid claims from the redress.
    DISP App 3.7.12
    01/12/2010
    Additionally, where a single premium was added to a loan, DISP App 3.7.4 E applies except that in respect of DISP App 3.7.4 E (1)(a) the cancellation value should only be used if the complainant expressly wishes to cancel the policy.
    DISP App 3.7.13
    01/12/2010
    The firm should, for the purposes of redressing the complaint, use the value of £9 per £100 of benefits payable as the monthly price of the alternative regular premium payment protection contract. For example, if the monthly repayment amount in relation to the loan only is to be £200, the price of the alternative regular premium payment protection contract will be £18.
    DISP App 3.7.14
    01/12/2010
    Where the firm presumes that the complainant would have purchased a regular premium payment protection contract and if the complainant expressly wishes it, the existing cover should continue until the end of the existing policy term. The complainant should pay the price of the alternative regular premium payment protection contract (at DISP App 3.7.13 E) and should be able to cancel at any time. This pricing does not apply where DISP App 3.7.4 E (1)(b) applies.
    DISP App 3.7.15
    06/04/2011
    So that the complainant can make the decision on the continuation of cover from an informed position, the firm should:
    (1) offer to provide details of the existing payment protection contract;

    (2) inform the complainant that he may be able to find similar cover more cheaply from another provider in the event that he chooses to cancel the policy and take an alternative but remind the complainant that if his circumstances (for example, his health or employment prospects) have changed since the original sale, he may not be eligible for cover under any new policy he buys;

    (3) make the complainant aware of the changes to the cancellation arrangements if cover continues;

    (4) explain how the future premium will be collected and the cost of the future cover; and

    (5) refer the complainant to 1, org.uk1 as a source of information about a range of alternative payment protection contracts.
    May not be relevant here, but it seemed worth a mention.
    Last edited by Bill-K; 26th August 2011, 19:27:PM. Reason: Mis-read quote - now attributed to correct source - I think !!! Apologies.

    Comment


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

      Nice one Bill.

      If you enter the DISP app numbers (ie 3.7.7) into the Policy Statement search function it goes into more detail on their application.

      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps10_12.pdf

      Comment


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

        Now had an "offer" letter from BOS that would "pay off" existing balance with a tiny bit to spare, however this was "sold" to Cabot who have never been able to supply valid CCA and from whom I got a letter last week saying they now considered it "irresolvable" ?! What happens now?:beagle:
        xxDT
        Never give up, Never surrender.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by EXC View Post
          If you enter the DISP app numbers (ie 3.7.7) into the Policy Statement search function it goes into more detail on their application.

          http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps10_12.pdf
          Thanks, EXC - yes, this gives a number of 'worked examples' - and even a worked spreadsheet page.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by dogtired View Post
            ...I got a letter last week saying they now considered it "irresolvable" ?! What happens now?:beagle:
            xxDT
            Not my domain, DT, but it does seem a bit naughty to me that the debt was sold to a DCA, who subsequently made the announcement that it was "irresolveable" (whatever that legally means !! ?) - yet Bos are apparently trying to "resolve" it to their own advantage, now.

            Presumably, you have been dealing with Cabot with regard to the alleged balance owing, which they appear to have confirmed is no longer pursuable.

            Then, BoS - who sold it to Cabot - appear to have re-taken 'ownership' of this alleged debt - presumably WITHOUT informing you of this 're-assignment.,' simply because it suits them as a way of reducing your PPI refund. I really don't think this can be seen as reasonable (or even lawful) conduct, as you are effectively being kicked around by whichever Tom, Dick or Harry decides they want a piece of you. That is effectively harrassment in my little book, as you are being hit by more than one pursuer simultaneously - and they are contradicting each other.

            The PPI you paid was taken from you unlawfully by BoS BEFORE the debt was sold to Cabot, and as such I believe it should NOT be used to effectively repay Cabot for their sterling work in determining it to be "irresolveable." It's misappropriation to my tiny mind - and besides - it could possibly be argued that, had Bos NOT mis-sold the PPI, then the debt may well have been settled by now, instead of being passed to a DCA unnecessarily.

            JMHO, though.

            Comment


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

              Bump
              Last edited by dogtired; 27th August 2011, 07:01:AM.
              Never give up, Never surrender.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Bill-K View Post
                Not my domain, DT, but it does seem a bit naughty to me that the debt was sold to a DCA, who subsequently made the announcement that it was "irresolveable" (whatever that legally means !! ?) - yet Bos are apparently trying to "resolve" it to their own advantage, now.

                Presumably, you have been dealing with Cabot with regard to the alleged balance owing, which they appear to have confirmed is no longer pursuable.

                Then, BoS - who sold it to Cabot - appear to have re-taken 'ownership' of this alleged debt - presumably WITHOUT informing you of this 're-assignment.,' simply because it suits them as a way of reducing your PPI refund. I really don't think this can be seen as reasonable (or even lawful) conduct, as you are effectively being kicked around by whichever Tom, Dick or Harry decides they want a piece of you. That is effectively harrassment in my little book, as you are being hit by more than one pursuer simultaneously - and they are contradicting each other.

                The PPI you paid was taken from you unlawfully by BoS BEFORE the debt was sold to Cabot, and as such I believe it should NOT be used to effectively repay Cabot for their sterling work in determining it to be "irresolveable." It's misappropriation to my tiny mind - and besides - it could possibly be argued that, had Bos NOT mis-sold the PPI, then the debt may well have been settled by now, instead of being passed to a DCA unnecessarily.

                JMHO, though.
                Thank you BK who ever said banks acted in a fair manner?
                Up until last year I did not know any better but then did the CCA to Cabot.
                I informed the FOS and she is going to get back to me when she can next week.
                I also have a seperate complaint going to the Ombudsman about Cabots activites who again did not sent a valid CCA and told FOS we were not "allowed" to see a copy of the agreement between them and BOS.
                Its all a bit of a mess and BOS are, still playing silly games, in the other that has been upheld they, at first, decided that it did not have "credit care" but "card care" now upheld but that has not stopped them trying to sell it on via Blair OLiver Scott to Robinson Way now on "hold" apparently until they can caluclate the refund, you just could not make it up!
                DT xx
                Never give up, Never surrender.

                Comment


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

                  the scans are what LloydsTSB are sending out to successful recipients including a page on how they calculate redress.
                  "Family means that no one gets forgotten or left behind"
                  (quote from David Ogden Stiers)

                  Comment


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

                    That's a better layout than the ones I received leclerc.
                    I have another 2 ongoing with them now from the mis 90's, some time to go on these ones yet though, the new 16 week rule for mine lol.

                    So chuffed for this success, well done to you and your mum.

                    Comment


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

                      More squealing from our angela (wondered when we were going to hear from her again)





                      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...d-2345670.html

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by mosten View Post
                        lots of black horse rejection letters being sent out in last week.. might be we cant deal with them, just reject them now so we meet deadline and then go back to them after wards in couple of weeks..
                        yes thats exactly what i told blackhorse on the phone last week when they rejected 2 of mines.she told me if i wasn't happy go to fos my reasons were i was self employed and have an underlying health problem but she wasn't interested so went straight on to phone to fos and put complaints in
                        just another way banks are keeping our money for another year or so while its with fos it stinks they should't be allowed to get away with it!

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by cappo View Post
                          More squealing from our angela (wondered when we were going to hear from her again)





                          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...d-2345670.html
                          Well, she was made to look a fool over the whole PPI thing-I though that they would have got rid of her after that. She has been quiet for a while, probably keeping her head low, but is back in full flow with idiotic statement like the one you gave us the link to.
                          Thanks!

                          Debtisbad

                          Comment


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

                            Was the Independent article about PPI cos I missed absolutely any reference to that topic?
                            "Family means that no one gets forgotten or left behind"
                            (quote from David Ogden Stiers)

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by k77mss View Post
                              yes thats exactly what i told blackhorse on the phone last week when they rejected 2 of mines.she told me if i wasn't happy go to fos my reasons were i was self employed and have an underlying health problem but she wasn't interested so went straight on to phone to fos and put complaints in
                              just another way banks are keeping our money for another year or so while its with fos it stinks they should't be allowed to get away with it!
                              They have to deal with the complaints before the august deadline or they get fined i think....

                              They knew they couldn't deal with them so have sent rejection letters out on large scale.

                              If you were to approach them again in middle of sept to ask them to reconsider your rejection and therefore save them the 500 pounds it will cost them at the FOS then they will probably be in a postion to listen since they will have dealt with your complaint in time and also you are giving them another chance to avoid the 500 fos charge...

                              Just the way I see it on your case since if you were self employed and pre existing medical conditions then fairly straight forward case imo

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by leclerc View Post
                                Was the Independent article about PPI cos I missed absolutely any reference to that topic?
                                No it was not. However, I eluded to the fact that after the PPI case, Angie babie went quiet for a long time and has now resurfaced with this tosh.
                                Thanks!

                                Debtisbad

                                Comment

                                View our Terms and Conditions

                                LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                                If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                                If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                                Working...
                                X