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

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

no, its not a formal product or 'owt like that. I had a current account plus overdraft, a CC and a loan. All with FD and when I defaulted on CC and loan they transferred the balances to the current account and suspended banking facilities. have been paying them ever since, quite a high repayment rate too, no DMP. But of course the CC had PPI sold with it and they are willing to reduce the debt by £2000. Thats fine but they are saying that they can apply the stat interest towards it too........

[leclerc]

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

It was never "a loan" as such. The debt is an amalgamation - unilaterally by the Bank - of a credit card, loan and an overdraft - into one super debt attached to and treated as an overdraft to my FD current account. It has been adminsitered by their collections dept for the past 5 years that way. I would imagine though that the CC and original loan were in arrears, when financial meltdown occured at the time, as everything else was! Does this info help?

Is it similar to "the one account" ie that you have one big overdraft which is slowly but surely paid off?

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

It was never "a loan" as such. The debt is an amalgamation - unilaterally by the Bank - of a credit card, loan and an overdraft - into one super debt attached to and treated as an overdraft to my FD current account. It has been adminsitered by their collections dept for the past 5 years that way. I would imagine though that the CC and original loan were in arrears, when financial meltdown occured at the time, as everything else was! Does this info help?

[leclerc]

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

I'll post this here as I've been commenting throughout this thread about my FIRST DIRECT PPI claim.

Right, the bank originally offered me a f&f PPI refund of £150. They said they didn't keep statements going back more than 6 years and that was all that was showing.

They had sent me statements going back to 2003 under my SAR however and I had to return these.

First Direct have now offered £2,000 in PPI inclusive of interest.

However, the stat interest is only £35 and this, plus the "ordinary" interest paid on the premiums of £850, is being used against my outstanding loan to them.

First direct have said (quote):

"I note your comments about the statutory interest being paid direct to you, rather than toward the outstanding debt. I have refered this matter further and we are within our rights to insist the money is used to reduce your debt."

Any thoughts?

Was there any arrears on the loan?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
As an aside for customers of LloydsTSB, I've been dealing with some missold PPI and they have given me some indication of timescale:


"As a guide we aim to complete your redress within 21 working days. If you do not receive your payment within this time period then please let us know and we can update you further. Due to the high volume of work it is not possible to guarantee any refund timescale as each case is treated on an individual basis. Please be assured we are arranging additional resource as quickly as possible in order to improve the service our customer’s receive. "

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

I'll post this here as I've been commenting throughout this thread about my FIRST DIRECT PPI claim.

Right, the bank originally offered me a f&f PPI refund of £150. They said they didn't keep statements going back more than 6 years and that was all that was showing.

They had sent me statements going back to 2003 under my SAR however and I had to return these.

First Direct have now offered £2,000 in PPI inclusive of interest.

However, the stat interest is only £35 and this, plus the "ordinary" interest paid on the premiums of £850, is being used against my outstanding loan to them.

First direct have said (quote):

"I note your comments about the statutory interest being paid direct to you, rather than toward the outstanding debt. I have refered this matter further and we are within our rights to insist the money is used to reduce your debt."

Any thoughts?

[EXC]

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

Firms pay more than £100m in PPI redress in July

''Consumers who complained about the sale of payment protection insurance (PPI) received £104m redress in July 2011.

Firms have now paid a total of £319m in redress between January and July 2011 to customers who complained about how they were sold PPI.

We receive data from the firms one month in arrears, and July’s figures are the latest information we have published. We receive complaints data from 16 firms, who accounted for 92% of PPI complaints in the first half of 2011.''


Firms pay more than £100m in PPI redress in July

[EXC]

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

Whilst we are on the subject of CMC's, MSE and Which are releasing a statement shortly about a Mystery Shopping exercise they did on some of them....

Here it is:


PPI compensation companies investigated - September - 2011 - Which? News


MSE & Which? team up for PPI claims handler guidance

[dogtired]

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

What about "cold" calls had a least three such calls and three mail shots.
Asked one such caller what the "cut" to them was she could not reply!
Now do not answer the phone unless someone leaves a message and those who did leave a number are now on "barred" list!
Form now sent to FOS re Barclay Card another wait I guess

[EXC]

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

Whilst we are on the subject of CMC's, MSE and Which are releasing a statement shortly about a Mystery Shopping exercise they did on some of them....

I know that there is alot of bad CMC's out there, taking upfront fees and the like, and these have no place in a regulated industry but i do wonder what it would be like if we were not here??

I was at a FOS meet some months ago in which someone very senior at the FOS said the majority of consumers would not be contacted under route cause analysis and it made me think then who would drive this mis selling scandle if it was not the CMC's....Which? has had some 10k letters and MSE some 1.5 m downloaded but even this is a drop in the ocean to the reported 20 million policies out there.

So, while my industry is taken apart from all sides (some justified, granted), if we were not here then potentially millions of people who have been mis sold would not claim. Alot of people do not even know they have the PPI!!!!!

This is why the Banks hate us so much, because we are the main driver but whether Which or Lewis will ever ack the fact, I very much doubt it.

I think that's a very balanced view.

There's no doubt that although Which? were the catalyst in exposing the problems with PPI back in 1998, CMCs are now the main driver of PPI complaints in terms of volume - circa 80%.

We met with the MOJ last month to discuss the concerns we have with some CMCs and also the regulatory framework and they take the view that even accounting for the number of bogus claims and instances of ripping-off, there is a net gain to the consumer and I don't doubt that.

[Amethyst]

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

Whilst we are on the subject of CMC's, MSE and Which are releasing a statement shortly about a Mystery Shopping exercise they did on some of them....
.

Be interesting to compare it with the 2009 Mystery Shopping exercise commissioned by the BBA http://claimscouncil.org/system/file...pdf?1259166554

[leclerc]

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

I think most of us have seen the issue of PPI with regards to the CMC's adverts and I am sure that has generated some people to pursue a claim in this regards.

[seller 17]

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

Whilst we are on the subject of CMC's, MSE and Which are releasing a statement shortly about a Mystery Shopping exercise they did on some of them....

I know that there is alot of bad CMC's out there, taking upfront fees and the like, and these have no place in a regulated industry but i do wonder what it would be like if we were not here??

I was at a FOS meet some months ago in which someone very senior at the FOS said the majority of consumers would not be contacted under route cause analysis and it made me think then who would drive this mis selling scandle if it was not the CMC's....Which? has had some 10k letters and MSE some 1.5 m downloaded but even this is a drop in the ocean to the reported 20 million policies out there.

So, while my industry is taken apart from all sides (some justified, granted), if we were not here then potentially millions of people who have been mis sold would not claim. Alot of people do not even know they have the PPI!!!!!

This is why the Banks hate us so much, because we are the main driver but whether Which or Lewis will ever ack the fact, I very much doubt it.

[EXC]

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

CMC trade association should be welcomed, not derided

A number of CMCs combined last week to launch the Association of Professional Claims Managers (APCM) to “increase the professionalism and levels of service provided by regulated claims management companies“. While cynics will query the use of the term ‘professional’ and the possibly self-serving business motives of its members, I applaud the stated aims of the APCM and the introduction of its ‘Claims Management Code’.

The APCM’s Code includes high level principles requiring members to treat customers fairly and act responsibly and to conduct their business with honesty, fairness and transparency. It sets out claims handling rules including specific prohibitions on “enquiry – style” claims (aimed at circumventing the CMC’s responsibility to establish the veracity, and state the particulars, of a claim) and issuing blanket or template letters. These rules answer directly some of the financial services sector’s most familiar complaints about CMCs and the Code must therefore be welcomed in this respect. In fact, the Code’s rules go beyond what is required of complainants. The regulations and guidance applicable to respondent firms require them to deal with a complaint no matter how it is phrased and consider issues even if they have not expressly been raised by the complainant or their representative (DISP 1.4).

One of the Association’s stated objectives is to provide an independent arbitration service to deal with complaints “from consumers and other parties“. Despite the suggestion ‘other parties’ might be able to complain, the section of the Code on “customer service and complaints” refers to the MoJ Complaints Handling Rules and (like those rules) is geared towards complaints only by the CMC’s customer. Firms aggrieved by the conduct of a CMC bringing a claim against them can at least refer the matter to the FOS or FSA under the MoUs in place with the Claims Management Regulator.

Even though the motive of APCM members is more likely to be business development than professionalism for its own sake (whatever that term means these days), the Association should be welcomed as a positive step towards higher standards and ethics in the handling of financial services complaints.

CMC trade association should be welcomed, not derided - Lexology

[EXC]

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

Proposed amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act include a provision requiring the ombudsman to publish "reports of determinations", after removing the name of the consumer behind a complaint and any particulars that might help identify them. Under the proposals, the FOS would retain a discretion not to publish a decision if it deemed it inappropriate.
I think that, perhaps, the term "inappropriate" needs defining, first. If it is also going to include "uncomfortable, embarrassing, marginally interesting, ground-breaking," etc., then I think this will need looking into.
Only final decisions would be published, not the informal opinions of adjudicators in the earlier stages of a dispute, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Why not ? If a case is worthy of publication, then its' entire progress is of importance, surely.
Does this also mean that ALL adjudicators' opinions are "informal" ?? It seems to. Again - where is the definition ?
Decisions would appear in full, not in summary form, on the FOS website shortly after they are made, it said.
As indicated in the draft legislation the FOS would have the power not to publish a particular decision or parts of it if, for instance, full publication might assist criminal activity or interfere with an investigation, although it expects this to be a rare occurrence.
Fair enough. AS LONG as this doesn't mean "If THIS gets out - they'll ALL be doing it !!!"
In very rare cases, however, it might not be possible to publish a comprehensible account without revealing the consumer's identity. "However, our review suggests that this type of case is not a common part of our caseload. When we see cases like this, the best approach will be not to publish the case at all," it said.
Let's NOT see this as a "convenient excuse not to publish."
"So if the objective was to protect the identity of the financial business in the same way as we propose to protect the identity of consumers, there would need to be extensive redaction of the decision – often effectively making the decision incomprehensible on publication," it said.
Yeah - OK. Just DON'T abuse this.
"There is inevitably considerable public interest in the identity of the business in many cases. Even if redaction was practical, it is unlikely to be generally sustainable," it said. "And attempting to do so may only fuel public speculation – and sometimes erroneous reporting. This can damage a wide range of financial businesses as well as or even instead of the actual business concerned."
LOL - "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone..." The innocent parties here are the consumers. The lenders have enough protection. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."
The proposals would allow genuinely confidential information to be withheld, but firms would have to persuade the ombudsman that this was necessary.
OK. Good. Let's see that happen, then. For real.

Looks like the FOS have decided not to publish any complainant's names after all http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...dminutes11.pdf

[EXC]

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

[quote=MBD23;228662]it is if it isnt put into some (or any) context


The Watchdog episode wasn't about the fairness of how banks handle complaints but the unfairness of how some CMCs handle their customers and perspective customers which was squeezed into a 10 minute slot.

If CMCs wanted to appear on the show to put their views forward then I'm sure Watchdog would have jumped at the chance.