Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......
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.
Originally posted by EXC
View Post
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.
Comment