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

[Bill-K]

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

...AFAIK no bank has been fined for mis-selling packaged accounts...

Early days, of course, EXC. I'm thinking of the wider category, which I think may still be applicable to both PPI and Packaged. This is that being fined for mis-selling ANY insurance must surely be good enough evidence. Indeed - being fined for mis-selling ANYTHING WHATSOEVER is perhaps enough to tick the box - whether it be PPI, PA, or custom-printed bogroll !!!

Re-focussing on insurance, though...sure, pre-ICOBS claims may have problems, but the FSA disclaimer you quote doesn't - to my tiny mind - absolve them of any responsibility, simply because a claim comes in under the label 'Packaged Account.' Mis-sold insurance is mis-sold insurance, I reckons. Label it as 'Our New Super-duper Family Protection Scheme,' if need be - but if the end result is a mis-sold product, then a misleading label is nowt more than another piece of damning evidence, IMHO - certainly NOT a defence !!!

I've not had the dubious pleasure of working on a 'PA' claim as yet, so I'm merely trying to gather info and opinion on this subject. I wouldn't expect any recent figures on 'uphold rate' to be much of an indication, as yet, though.

Regarding unenforceability -v- PPI reclaims, I agree with AC, in that we must make our choice. If we are wishing to reclaim PPI on a debt which we do NOT acknowledge, then we must surely - AT THE VERY LEAST - be extremely careful with our words. Personally, I believe that we should use unenforceability as a means to an end - and NOT as an end in itself - but every claim is different.

[dogtired]

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

The $64,000 dollar question for many...
Can one have ones cake and eat it?

sorry forgot to put that the original PPI claim was two years ago and it is that the Welcome say they cannot "do" any more they say they will take it off the outstanding balance of the alleged existing account thats why I asked the original question.

[leclerc]

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

AFAIK no bank has been fined for mis-selling packaged accounts.

I don't think you can rely on ICOBS to reclaim for past mis-selling as the FSA has pretty much given the banks a get-out clause - ''We did not write our ICOBS requirements with packaged bank accounts in mind.''

However the FSA's Treating Customers Fairly principles should apply regardless but wouldn't necessarily cover everything that ICOBS would if it had applied.

Here's an example of Lloyds refunding someone presumably on the grounds of unsuitability New bank mis-selling scandal as watchdog plans 'premium' account crackdown | Mail Online

It would be worth having a look to see if the FOS has uphold rate figures for packaged account mis-selling complaints as that would give us a fair indication. If they haven't published the figures then request them under the Freedom of Information Act as they will be covered by the Act from next Tuesday.

As you may know, I do take an interest in this kind of misselling simply because I feel it may be widespread and that people have sometimes been mislead after the point of sale into keeping an account because it may be tied into a discounted product and are under the belief that it they change their packaged account to a standard current account that they lose the discount(they wouldn't on fixed rate products). Furthermore, I have always stated that I believe a partial reclaim IS possible on packaged account if you can clearly demonstrate that the packaged account benefits against the cost involved do not save you money or that you have another product which has continued on in spite of upgrading(as they call it) or opening a packaged account because it show evidence that the package of benefits that is given was not explained properly at the point of sale.

The example that the Daily Mail has got is clearly one where no benefits whatsoever were beneficial to the individual and therefore it was worthless.

I don't think that ineligibility for insurances is necessarily the key to claims on misselling packaged accounts because you may benefit from other things within that account that may outweigh the amount you pay. Bill-k, it's the overall package that you need to look at and not just the fact that a person might not be eligible for travel insurance

[Bill-K]

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

Bill-k, it's the overall package that you need to look at and not just the fact that a person might not be eligible for travel insurance

I agree, M. Leclerc, that - just like PPI - there can be a wide range of reasons why a package is inappropriate, unsuitable, or just plain useless - and these can be quite different from those which may affect the mis-selling of PPI. Indeed, there may perhaps be parts of a 'package' that are not insurance-related at all - but which may still be unsuitable, and therefore mis-sold.

This is why I'm interested in any history of being fined or reprimanded for mis-selling ANYTHING - not just insurance.

[Bill-K]

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

...they say they will take it off the outstanding balance of the alleged existing account thats why I asked the original question.

I think I see your point, now, DT. It would seem fair enough to me to take any refunded PPI off the outstanding balance of another account with that lender - provided that the balance is actually OUTSTANDING (ie., that the account is in arrears).

If an account is in dispute for any reason, then I'm not sure that this is allowable, though. If an account is unenforceable, then I believe that this must automatically put it into dispute. But the question still remains about whether the alleged debt EXISTS - and unenforceability only prevents the pursuit of repayment of the debt. The debt is not extinguished or annulled by unenforceability.

To me, the unsolicited 'appropriation' of a PPI refund to fully or partially 'repay' an unenforceable debt is not only unlawful pursuit of repayment of that debt, but unlawful misappropriation of the customer's money. They are lurching from mis-selling to misappropriation, IMHO !!!

[EXC]

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

From the Financial Times:

Fee refunds for mis-sold bank accounts

Bank customers who pay a monthly fee for their current accounts could reclaim thousands of pounds if these products include “useless” insurance policies.

New rules over the sale of “packaged” accounts will require banks to conduct a thorough assessment of whether or not clients can use the additional benefits included.

But the Financial Services Authority said that customers who had already paid for current accounts including extras such as travel or mobile phone insurance that they could not use, might also have a legitimate cause for complaint.

“It will depend on what the customer was told when they bought the account and whether they understood the policies,” said a spokesperson for the Financial Ombudsman Service. “But it is up to the provider to explain to customers how policies work.”

The City regulator has expressed concern that banks may be selling these packaged accounts, which charge around £300 a year on average, to customers who do not understand or need them.

One in five adults in the UK is now estimated to hold a fee-based current account.

Banks seeking to make up lost revenue in the wake of the financial crisis have ramped up the marketing of these accounts. Packaged accounts now outnumber the free in-credit accounts available.

However, the FSA has noted that the sale of certain insurance products by banks has been similar to the sale of payment protection insurance (PPI).

The mis-selling of thousands of PPI policies led to the biggest consumer scandal of the past decade, which cost banks more than £7bn.

The regulator is now examining whether the commission-based selling of packaged accounts needs to be overhauled in order to ensure the accounts are only sold to customers who can use the features they pay for.

[leclerc]

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

From the Financial Times:

Fee refunds for mis-sold bank accounts

Bank customers who pay a monthly fee for their current accounts could reclaim thousands of pounds if these products include “useless” insurance policies.

New rules over the sale of “packaged” accounts will require banks to conduct a thorough assessment of whether or not clients can use the additional benefits included.

But the Financial Services Authority said that customers who had already paid for current accounts including extras such as travel or mobile phone insurance that they could not use, might also have a legitimate cause for complaint.

“It will depend on what the customer was told when they bought the account and whether they understood the policies,” said a spokesperson for the Financial Ombudsman Service. “But it is up to the provider to explain to customers how policies work.”

The City regulator has expressed concern that banks may be selling these packaged accounts, which charge around £300 a year on average, to customers who do not understand or need them.

One in five adults in the UK is now estimated to hold a fee-based current account.

Banks seeking to make up lost revenue in the wake of the financial crisis have ramped up the marketing of these accounts. Packaged accounts now outnumber the free in-credit accounts available.

However, the FSA has noted that the sale of certain insurance products by banks has been similar to the sale of payment protection insurance (PPI).

The mis-selling of thousands of PPI policies led to the biggest consumer scandal of the past decade, which cost banks more than £7bn.

The regulator is now examining whether the commission-based selling of packaged accounts needs to be overhauled in order to ensure the accounts are only sold to customers who can use the features they pay for.

I think the banks will argue the case about the overall package of accounts. I can only speak about NatWest but they have a illustrator which SHOULD be completed at the point of sale but in my experience that is not always the case and the comparisons are based on the bank's own product or the most expensive kind of mobile phone insurance to suggest that you will save money. As we all know, banks do not sell products where there is not a direct benefit to themselves ie guaranteed income from paying a fee and not using the benefits of the account.

[dogtired]

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

I think I see your point, now, DT. It would seem fair enough to me to take any refunded PPI off the outstanding balance of another account with that lender - provided that the balance is actually OUTSTANDING (ie., that the account is in arrears).

If an account is in dispute for any reason, then I'm not sure that this is allowable, though. If an account is unenforceable, then I believe that this must automatically put it into dispute. But the question still remains about whether the alleged debt EXISTS - and enforceability only prevents the pursuit of repayment of the debt. The debt is not extinguished or annulled by unenforceability.

To me, the unsolicited 'appropriation' of a PPI refund to fully or partially 'repay' an unenforceable debt is not only unlawful pursuit of repayment of that debt, but unlawful misappropriation of the customer's money. They are lurching from mis-selling to misappropriation, IMHO !!!

Thanks again gathering all papers to go to the local Citizens Advice, not giving up on it!
Regarding "packaged accounts" when we opened out currant account last year they did it as a"matter of course" it was not discussed. When I realized I went in and asked that it just be a currant account. But since then if I go into the main branch or use telephone banking they have tried to get me to "upgrade to save money" I would use NONE of the so called perks so I have refused! They did refund the charges they took though

[dogtired]

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

i have now go to go to the main offices locally to see the legal man in the CAB do not know when yet.
In another story not sure what Bank of Scotland are up to eventually got a settled ppi from them via the FOS and offer letter arrived on Friday.
The added compliation as posted before is that during this time BOS passed this on to Blair Oliver Scott, Robinson Way and back to Blair Oliver again.
But in todays post i have got a cheue for the full amount (very nice thank you!)
Do i bank and keep it?

[debtisbad]

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

The $64,000 dollar question for many...
Can one have ones cake and eat it?

Actually, I got both from the Abbey National (scabby Abbey), who were trying to blame MBNA, who tried to blame Lowell's; don't they to sh** on each other as well as their customers? They lost all the original paperwork and wrote off ten grand, since they could not enforce it. Then, the GOD told them to refund nine hundred quid's worth of PPI.

So you can do.both.

[EXC]

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

Between a (Northern) Rock and a hard place: court dismisses borrower’s allegation of PPI mis-selling

Introduction
The day after the Court of Appeal’s decision in Harrison & Harrison v Black Horse Limited [2011] EWCA Civ 1128, His Honour Judge Owen QC gave judgment on another payment protection insurance claim in Jones v Northern Rock (Asset Management) plc (2011), Unreported, Lincoln County Court, 13 October 2011 which dealt with two common arguments: firstly, whether Northern Rock (Asset Management) plc (“NRAM&rdquo complied with the Insurance: Conduct of Business Rules (“ICOB” secondly, whether NRAM’s sales process created an unfair relationship under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the “CCA 1974&rdquo. Both lenders and intermediaries will be pleased to know that the Court robustly examined the borrower’s evidence, dismissed the borrower’s claim and awarded costs against the borrower on the indemnity basis.  

The Facts
Shortly before August 2006, Mr Jones applied for a loan with NRAM. It was NRAM’s position (which was not accepted by Mr Jones) that Mr Jones applied for the loan online and selected to take the ‘silver’ level of cover of payment protection insurance (“PPI&rdquo. NRAM argued that the sale of this policy was non-advised for the purposes of ICOB. Just over a year later, on 16 August 2007, Mr Jones proposed to consolidate his debts (including his existing loan with NRAM) and telephoned NRAM. Mr Jones spoke to the sales representative, who recommended Mr Jones take the ‘gold’ level of PPI. The loan was for £25,000. After the call ended, NRAM sent through its central processing facility:

• the pre-contract information;
• the agreement;
• the initial disclosure document;
• the demands and needs statement (called a ‘reasons why&rsquo explaining NRAM’s recommendation;
• a policy summary; and
• a policy document.

The documentation included a ‘welcome letter’ which explained that the PPI was optional and, to take it, Mr Jones needed to tick and sign an additional box appearing on the agreement. Mr Jones was able to read the documentation at his leisure. On 20 August 2007 Mr Jones signed the agreement. He also signed and ticked a further box stating that he had a “wish” to take further credit to pay for the PPI. He then returned the agreement to NRAM. The policy’s cost was £13,243.25 plus interest.

The Claim
Mr Jones initially issued a claim against NRAM alleging (amongst other things) that the PPI was represented as compulsory. After disclosure and exchange of evidence, Mr Jones applied (and obtained) permission to amend his claim and abandon the allegation that the PPI was represented as compulsory (as this was not supported by the call recording) and expand his other allegations. Mr Jones also sought to rely upon Appendix 3 to the Financial Services Authority’s Dispute Resolution: Complaints (“DISP&rdquo. By the time of trial, Mr Jones also abandoned any reliance on DISP. He also abandoned his allegations that there was non-compliance with ICOB and/or an unfair relationship because NRAM failed to advise on, or take account of, the cost of alternative policies on the market and received a commission from the insurer (following Harrison). He therefore argued that:

• NRAM failed to comply with ICOB by:
  • giving the impression that the PPI was compulsory;
  • drafting the consumer credit agreement in such a way that it was “pre-completed” with PPI and contained “no de-select box”;
  • failing to set out the PPI’s cost;
  • failing to tell Mr Jones that interest would be payable on the premium for the PPI;
  • recommending the PPI when it was unsuitable because it failed to take into account (a) Mr Jones’ sick pay from his employer, (b) the value of a quasi-life insurance and (c) Mr Jones’ pension;
  • failing to provide a pro-rata rebate on early settlement after the initial 30 day cancellation period;
  
  
• NRAM’s failure to comply with ICOB and/or its sales procedure created an unfair relationship between the parties.  

The Decision
After hearing the recording of the telephone call (which was played in Court) and evidence from Mr Jones and Tasneem Tayub (a senior collections manager within the team responsible for NRAM’s unsecured lending portfolio), His Honour Judge Owen QC decided that:

• the starting point when considering such claims “is the Claimant himself”. Mr Jones was born in 1970, had been employed by Royal Mail for 18 years at the time of the later agreement and had “a clear history and experience with loans and debt management” which was “set out by [the sales representative’s] correct questioning at the outset”;
• the earlier loan was “selected by [Mr Jones] online, in circumstances where he was provided with the means of opting for the loan with or without PPI, and he chose ‘Silver’ cover”;
• Mr Jones was “fully aware of the purpose of PPI and its benefits if a risk arose”;
• there was “a faint issue raised by Mr Jones as to whether the documents were sent. He did not deny receipt, but was reluctant to state plainly that the documents were included in the envelope with the agreement” but His Honour Judge Owen QC was “satisfied that they were included”;
• it was “for Mr Jones, as a capable adult, to determine whether he wished to read the documents”;
• the sales representative’s “approach was appropriate and did not fall below the ICOB standard”. In particular, despite the sales representative failing to state the monthly and total cost of the PPI during the phone call, the “‘Key Financial Information’ plainly sets out the premium and monthly payments”;
• Mr Jones was “concerned about whether he could obtain a loan to the maximum at an instalment which he could – just – afford. Insofar as he believed that the PPI was mandatory, that belief, if it existed, did not arise out of anything said by [the sales representative]. Mr Jones knew what sums he required, knew what PPI was and how it interrelated with the loan and its effect on the monthly payments”
• it was Mr Jones who had “assessed, certainly by the time he signed, that given the loan amount and the period, he chose to accept the recommendation of ‘Gold’ PPI”. If he “chose merely to glance at the documents without troubling to read them, that is probably because he was more than happy to continue with PPI on this enhanced basis, given the enhanced loan”;
• if Mr Jones “chose to sign up to ‘Gold’ for another reason, that was due to his own self-induced ignorance in not reading the documents in his possession” and if he “signed up with inadequate knowledge, that was not due to anything said or done by NRAM, which complied with the minimum requirements”;
• the “separate signature was required for the PPI, to indicate that, having considered the position in light of the documents, and assessed by his own knowledge and history, he had chosen to positively tick the box and sign”;
• Mr Jones’ evidence that “might vaguely have cast his eye over the documents” but wanted to “distance himself from the importance of the documents” was “unimpressive – he knew what he was doing”;
• the decision to uphold the complaint on the earlier loan, which was written either for customer relation reasons or for expediency, was not relevant. The letter did not “suggest that this subsequent agreement is tainted” and while “Mr Jones’ solicitors may have wanted to make something of it, there is no basis here for criticising this agreement”;
• Mr Jones did not “enter this agreement due to any, or any material, breach of ICOB” and there was no unfair relationship.

His Honour Judge Owen QC therefore dismissed the claim. After hearing submissions on costs, he awarded them on the indemnity basis in the sum of £19,348.11.  

Comment
This is an extremely welcome decision from the Court and follows the Court of Appeal’s emphatic judgment in Harrison & Harrison v Black Horse Limited [2011] EWCA Civ 1128. It is, to our knowledge, the first decision from the Court on PPI after the handing down of Harrison. It is important to note that, once again, the Court was not impressed by the borrower’s evidence which His Honour Judge Owen QC thought was, at times, “unimpressive”. As we noted following the High Court’s decision in R (on the application of British Bankers Association) v The Financial Services Authority & The Financial Ombudsman Service [2011] EWHC 999 (Admin), consumers already in litigation (or contemplating litigation) who cannot clearly recall the sale with absolute clarity would be better served by discontinuing their claim (or not making it) and making a complaint either directly to the firm or FOS. Mr Jones did not and, instead, pursued his claim in the Courts. By the time of trial, Donns LLP (the solicitors instructed by Mr Jones), had incurred costs (excluding a success fee which was, no doubt, 100%) of around £49,000. If the success fee was 100%, Mr Jones’ costs would have been just short of £70,000 yet, by the time of trial, he had only paid £3,634.01 towards the PPI.


While NRAM did not produce the original seller to give evidence, it did have a transcript of the sale. In our view, the same conclusion would, however, have been reached if there was no transcript of the sale. It was telling that His Honour Judge Owen QC placed considerable (and understandable) weight on the fact that Mr Jones had previously applied for (and selected)

PPI during a non-advised sale. It was “for Mr Jones, as a capable adult, to determine whether he wished to read the documents” but he decided not to do so. The documentation (which was posted to his home address for him to read at his leisure) plainly explained the policy’s cost, its benefits, limitations and exclusions and the reason for recommending the policy. Mr Jones knew what he was doing and decided (on his own) to take further credit and enter into the policy. Finally, the Court’s decision to award costs on the indemnity basis is important. Plainly, His Honour Judge Owen QC was unimpressed by Mr Jones’ claim, or the way in which it was pursued, and gave a stark warning to borrowers who bring such a claim: it will be thoroughly tested and examined and, if it is without merit, it will be dismissed with serious cost consequences. Such an approach should be commended and is plainly right.

[anaellie]

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

Exc what impact if any do you think this will have on PPI complaints with respect of uphold rates

[Bill-K]

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

For those who, like me, have trouble reading anything that's not in block capitals these days - I've had a stab at removing the formatting codes from EXC's excellently-gophered transcript posted above. Hope it helps !!!

Introduction
The day after the Court of Appeal’s decision in Harrison & Harrison v Black Horse Limited [2011] EWCA Civ 1128, His Honour Judge Owen QC gave judgment on another payment protection insurance claim in Jones v Northern Rock (Asset Management) plc (2011), Unreported, Lincoln County Court, 13 October 2011 which dealt with two common arguments: firstly, whether Northern Rock (Asset Management) plc (NRAM) complied with the Insurance: Conduct of Business Rules (ICOB); secondly, whether NRAM’s sales process created an unfair relationship under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the CCA 1974). Both lenders and intermediaries will be pleased to know that the Court robustly examined the borrower’s evidence, dismissed the borrower’s claim and awarded costs against the borrower on the indemnity basis.

The Facts
Shortly before August 2006, Mr Jones applied for a loan with NRAM. It was NRAM’s position (which was not accepted by Mr Jones) that Mr Jones applied for the loan online and selected to take the ‘silver’ level of cover of payment protection insurance (PPI). NRAM argued that the sale of this policy was non-advised for the purposes of ICOB. Just over a year later, on 16 August 2007, Mr Jones proposed to consolidate his debts (including his existing loan with NRAM) and telephoned NRAM. Mr Jones spoke to the sales representative, who recommended Mr Jones take the ‘gold’ level of PPI. The loan was for £25,000. After the call ended, NRAM sent through its central processing facility:

• the pre-contract information;
• the agreement;
• the initial disclosure document;
• the demands and needs statement (called a ‘reasons why’ explaining NRAM’s recommendation;
• a policy summary; and
• a policy document.
The documentation included a ‘welcome letter’ which explained that the PPI was optional and, to take it, Mr Jones needed to tick and sign an additional box appearing on the agreement. Mr Jones was able to read the documentation at his leisure. On 20 August 2007 Mr Jones signed the agreement. He also signed and ticked a further box stating that he had a wish); to take further credit to pay for the PPI. He then returned the agreement to NRAM. The policy’s cost was £13,243.25 plus interest.

The Claim
Mr Jones initially issued a claim against NRAM alleging (amongst other things) that the PPI was represented as compulsory. After disclosure and exchange of evidence, Mr Jones applied (and obtained) permission to amend his claim and abandon the allegation that the PPI was represented as compulsory (as this was not supported by the call recording) and expand his other allegations. Mr Jones also sought to rely upon Appendix 3 to the Financial Services Authority’s Dispute Resolution: Complaints (DISP). By the time of trial, Mr Jones also abandoned any reliance on DISP. He also abandoned his allegations that there was non-compliance with ICOB and/or an unfair relationship because NRAM failed to advise on, or take account of, the cost of alternative policies on the market and received a commission from the insurer (following Harrison). He therefore argued that:

• NRAM failed to comply with ICOB by:
o giving the impression that the PPI was compulsory;
o drafting the consumer credit agreement in such a way that it was pre-completed); with PPI and contained no de-select box);
o failing to set out the PPI’s cost;
o failing to tell Mr Jones that interest would be payable on the premium for the PPI;
o recommending the PPI when it was unsuitable because it failed to take into account (a) Mr Jones’ sick pay from his employer, (b) the value of a quasi-life insurance and (c) Mr Jones’ pension;
o failing to provide a pro-rata rebate on early settlement after the initial 30 day cancellation period;
• NRAM’s failure to comply with ICOB and/or its sales procedure created an unfair relationship between the parties.

The Decision
After hearing the recording of the telephone call (which was played in Court) and evidence from Mr Jones and Tasneem Tayub (a senior collections manager within the team responsible for NRAM’s unsecured lending portfolio), His Honour Judge Owen QC decided that:

• the starting point when considering such claims is the Claimant himself);. Mr Jones was born in 1970, had been employed by Royal Mail for 18 years at the time of the later agreement and had a clear history and experience with loans and debt management); which was set out by [the sales representative’s] correct questioning at the outset);
• the earlier loan was selected by [Mr Jones] online, in circumstances where he was provided with the means of opting for the loan with or without PPI, and he chose ‘Silver’ cover);
• Mr Jones was fully aware of the purpose of PPI and its benefits if a risk arose);
• there was a faint issue raised by Mr Jones as to whether the documents were sent. He did not deny receipt, but was reluctant to state plainly that the documents were included in the envelope with the agreement); but His Honour Judge Owen QC was satisfied that they were included);
• it was for Mr Jones, as a capable adult, to determine whether he wished to read the documents);
• the sales representative’s approach was appropriate and did not fall below the ICOB standard);. In particular, despite the sales representative failing to state the monthly and total cost of the PPI during the phone call, the ‘Key Financial Information’ plainly sets out the premium and monthly payments);
• Mr Jones was concerned about whether he could obtain a loan to the maximum at an instalment which he could - just - afford. Insofar as he believed that the PPI was mandatory, that belief, if it existed, did not arise out of anything said by [the sales representative]. Mr Jones knew what sums he required, knew what PPI was and how it interrelated with the loan and its effect on the monthly payments);
• it was Mr Jones who had assessed, certainly by the time he signed, that given the loan amount and the period, he chose to accept the recommendation of ‘Gold’ PPI);. If he chose merely to glance at the documents without troubling to read them, that is probably because he was more than happy to continue with PPI on this enhanced basis, given the enhanced loan);
• if Mr Jones chose to sign up to ‘Gold’ for another reason, that was due to his own self-induced ignorance in not reading the documents in his possession); and if he signed up with inadequate knowledge, that was not due to anything said or done by NRAM, which complied with the minimum requirements);
• the separate signature was required for the PPI, to indicate that, having considered the position in light of the documents, and assessed by his own knowledge and history, he had chosen to positively tick the box and sign);
• Mr Jones’ evidence that might vaguely have cast his eye over the documents); but wanted to distance himself from the importance of the documents); was unimpressive - he knew what he was doing);
• the decision to uphold the complaint on the earlier loan, which was written either for customer relation reasons or for expediency, was not relevant. The letter did not suggest that this subsequent agreement is tainted); and while Mr Jones’ solicitors may have wanted to make something of it, there is no basis here for criticising this agreement);
• Mr Jones did not enter this agreement due to any, or any material, breach of ICOB); and there was no unfair relationship.
His Honour Judge Owen QC therefore dismissed the claim. After hearing submissions on costs, he awarded them on the indemnity basis in the sum of £19,348.11.

Comment
This is an extremely welcome decision from the Court and follows the Court of Appeal’s emphatic judgment in Harrison & Harrison v Black Horse Limited [2011] EWCA Civ 1128. It is, to our knowledge, the first decision from the Court on PPI after the handing down of Harrison. It is important to note that, once again, the Court was not impressed by the borrower’s evidence which His Honour Judge Owen QC thought was, at times, unimpressive);. As we noted following the High Court’s decision in R (on the application of British Bankers Association) v The Financial Services Authority & The Financial Ombudsman Service [2011] EWHC 999 (Admin), consumers already in litigation (or contemplating litigation) who cannot clearly recall the sale with absolute clarity would be better served by discontinuing their claim (or not making it) and making a complaint either directly to the firm or FOS. Mr Jones did not and, instead, pursued his claim in the Courts. By the time of trial, Donns LLP (the solicitors instructed by Mr Jones), had incurred costs (excluding a success fee which was, no doubt, 100%) of around £49,000. If the success fee was 100%, Mr Jones’ costs would have been just short of £70,000 yet, by the time of trial, he had only paid £3,634.01 towards the PPI.

While NRAM did not produce the original seller to give evidence, it did have a transcript of the sale. In our view, the same conclusion would, however, have been reached if there was no transcript of the sale. It was telling that His Honour Judge Owen QC placed considerable (and understandable) weight on the fact that Mr Jones had previously applied for (and selected) PPI during a non-advised sale. It was for Mr Jones, as a capable adult, to determine whether he wished to read the documents); but he decided not to do so. The documentation (which was posted to his home address for him to read at his leisure) plainly explained the policy’s cost, its benefits, limitations and exclusions and the reason for recommending the policy. Mr Jones knew what he was doing and decided (on his own) to take further credit and enter into the policy. Finally, the Court’s decision to award costs on the indemnity basis is important. Plainly, His Honour Judge Owen QC was unimpressed by Mr Jones’ claim, or the way in which it was pursued, and gave a stark warning to borrowers who bring such a claim: it will be thoroughly tested and examined and, if it is without merit, it will be dismissed with serious cost consequences. Such an approach should be commended and is plainly right.

[EXC]

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

For those who, like me, have trouble reading anything that's not in block capitals these days - I've had a stab at removing the formatting codes from EXC's excellently-gophered transcript posted above. Hope it helps !!!

Thanks Bill - you're a star.

[EXC]

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

Exc what impact if any do you think this will have on PPI complaints with respect of uphold rates

The Jones v Northern Rock judgment (or in fact any other judgment) would have no effect whatsover on complaint uphold rates.

In consideration of PPI complaints the banks (and FOS) have to take into account the FSA's Principles which offer much more consumer protection than ICOB or ICOBS. The courts can only judge a PPI complaint by reference to ICOB or ICOBS because the FSA's Principles aren't actionable in a court of law and this is really what the Judicial Review was all about - the banks argued that as the Principles aren't capable of giving rise to compensation in a court, why should they be liable to pay compensation at all?

Jones would have done well to read the Judicial Review judgment before taking Northern Rock to court and stupidly attempting to rely on ICOB:

''Ms Sinclair [for FSA] gave illustrations in her Witness Statement of the regulatory gap which the BBA's contention would open up. There is no specific ICOB rule which prohibits the selling of a PPI policy to someone who can never claim under it, even where the seller knows that to be the case. Such conduct would be covered by Principles 1, 3 and 6, but not if the BBA argument were correct since there were specific rules governing the sale of PPI policies. There is no specific ICOB rule which prevents the non-advised sale of a PPI policy where the cost of the premium plus interest payable, when added to the loan, exceeds any amount which could ever be paid out under the policy. Yet that would engage Principles 1 and 6. There is no ICOB rule which prohibits, on a non-advised sale, the sale of a single premium PPI policy with a refund provision which is not proportionate to the duration of the policy where the seller knows that it is likely that the loan to which the policy was related would be refinanced shortly after the policy was taken out. This would be a breach of the Principles as explained in common failing 15.''

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/999.html

I've said it before and I'll say it again - only a fool would take a PPI case to court. The FOS, although slow, is the only realistic option.