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

[mosten]

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

If the lenders were more forth coming when asked to provide the info required that would assist also..

Must be some instances where the client is saying... I definitely remember taking out the insurance you are on about and it turns out to be life assurance or short fall/ mechanical breakdown/gap if its car finance....

If member of public phones most of the lenders at the minute they are told you need to write to us.. why... you have my details on the screen in front to of you.. just tell me over the phone..

either

Yes you have PPI..Thank you, now i can complain to you about it and if you believe it was sold correctly, reject the claim..

No... Thank you for your help and time in this matter...

Half these claims wouldn't be sent in the first place if lenders complied

[Paul210]

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

For those that own CMC's or work in the sector, interesting article by mortgage strategy

Mortgage Strategy e-petition to lobby for claims firms to pay out | News | Mortgage Strategy

its a more than fair point, as a legit CMC I'd be more than happy to see anyone who sends a claim to FOS without merit (be it they havent given the lender/broker chance to deal with internally or they have been told no ppi but issued anyway) incur the same case fee a lender or broker would.

This would then make some of these "sausage factory" claims companies actually do some of the basic legwork associated with runing a complaint properly and more than likely force them and their bad press out of the marketplace allowing the genuine claims companies out there to continue their work without constantly being tarred with the same brush.

at the end of the day no one can argue its fair for the lender to incur a case charge for a spurious claim and therefore common sense dictates that anyone who makes a spurious claim should be liable for the fee instead.

[leclerc]

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

For those that own CMC's or work in the sector, interesting article by mortgage strategy

Mortgage Strategy e-petition to lobby for claims firms to pay out | News | Mortgage Strategy

[mosten]

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

Wonder if anyone who has done this type of thing before could write to the CEO of black horse asking for a statement regarding why all these rejections have been sent out...

as for the watchdog programme, had major discussion with friend of mine who said that after seeing the watchdog programme and me explaining certain things to him, he agreed that it was lob-sided report on the issue... he is just a member of the public who wasnt really aware of PPI and how it was missold.. he said that if he had just seen the programme, he wouldnt believe any CMC now since apparently is so straight forward to just write them a letter or just give them a call... I said that the day that is the realality of it is the day :flypig:

[MBD23]

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

The suggestion that consumers will get a fair deal from the banks was made by Tony Boorman from FOS - not the BBC- and as such isn't capable of being attributed to or described as a ''one sided view taken by BBC Watchdog''.

it is if it isnt put into some (or any) context

wonder how many people the cmc industry employ at a time when we totter on the edge of a double dip recession

[MBD23]

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

everyone came out looking bad from the program , except the banks

[EXC]

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

Quite so!

However, suggesting that consumers will get a fair deal from the banks is misleading.



Thus, I reiterate that I was unimpressed by the one sided view taken by BBC Watchdog last night.

The suggestion that consumers will get a fair deal from the banks was made by Tony Boorman from FOS - not the BBC- and as such isn't capable of being attributed to or described as a ''one sided view taken by BBC Watchdog''.

[enaid]

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

Quite so!

However, suggesting that consumers will get a fair deal from the banks is misleading.

Furthermore, it is not all plain sailing for consumers when they take their complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS)...

Thus, I reiterate that I was unimpressed by the one sided view taken by BBC Watchdog last night.

IMHO it is no different than how Martin Lewis comes across, making things look simple for the consumer, look what came from that, thousands got their overdraft charges back even though many had to put up a tough fight.
I can't see how they can possibly give all the ins and outs of a claim or even begin to knock the FOS for their part in such a short air time.
People need to be informed and if this is the only way some can get to know about it then I think it's good.

[Angry Cat]

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

Any prime time terrestrial TV show that warns vulnerable and unsuspecting people of the dangers of dealing with skank merchants such as Tucan Claims should receive our support and not criticism. Surely?

Quite so!

However, suggesting that consumers will get a fair deal from the banks is misleading.

Furthermore, it is not all plain sailing for consumers when they take their complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS)...

Thus, I reiterate that I was unimpressed by the one sided view taken by BBC Watchdog last night.

[EXC]

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

Does anybody know if this judgment has been handed down yet?

I have recently won a High Court Appeal on the grounds of the payment of secret commission and am currently awaiting a remit to County Court for 'further consideration' on my UR claim as a result.

The other side tried to use this case in their defence but His Lordship was having none of it! It'd just be nice if I could tell them that their only feeble effort has been repealed

It hasn't been handed down yet and won't be until at least early October - the Court of Appeal judicial term starts 3 October.

Would you mind telling us a bit about your case?

[seller 17]

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

Are people complaining to the FSA about Black Horse because numbers of complaints are important?
If, and I am not saying you, people are angry and do not complain about this issue to the FSA then they will have very little evidence to be able to show that there is a clear obstruction occurring within the organisation of Black Horse?

As an aside, I dealt with LloydsTSB and simply did a SAR and gave the appropriate numbers for them to provide loan paperwork which they did just within the allotted timescale(if I was being ruthless they were 1 day late).

Already sent it to the FSA who have confirmed receipt. (they were not impressed!)

[mosten]

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

they are not even investigating them from what i have been told.. quite few of self employed, nhs, council workers etc etc still been rejected... some people have complained thou so not sure what is going to happen.. fsa and fos know about it..

[leclerc]

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

Are people complaining to the FSA about Black Horse because numbers of complaints are important?
If, and I am not saying you, people are angry and do not complain about this issue to the FSA then they will have very little evidence to be able to show that there is a clear obstruction occurring within the organisation of Black Horse?

As an aside, I dealt with LloydsTSB and simply did a SAR and gave the appropriate numbers for them to provide loan paperwork which they did just within the allotted timescale(if I was being ruthless they were 1 day late).

[mosten]

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

Really racks me off when they give such a slanted view on this... Any member of the public watching this will think its sooooo easy now to claim since the banks HAVE to give you your PPI back all you have to do is send in a letter....

So how come black horse are rejecting everything with out even investigating, hscs are virtually saying we can't find any records but if you can find your paperwork then we might have a look at it, lots of lenders saying cant give you details over phone, go a do a section 77 request ( most people in street dont know what this is ) , welcome/fscs saying we sent you the form, did you not recieve it etc etc etc... In the real world banks still have shareholders and proffits to protect and since the review have been better but still are not complying completly like they should..

The fsa should fine black horse for what they have done an send a message out to all the other banks and show their teeth once and for all.. The only decent bit of that watchdog article was in the replies back from the CMC's but the general public wont bother reading that..

If you gonna tell a story, for goodness sake tell both sides to it..

There are dodgy cmc's AND yes of course get rid of them but there are quite a few like the BIG DOG who do try and assist the client in getting the money back from the bank..

Do it your self..? Why would you trust the people who ripped you off in the first place to deal with your complaint with out having someone on your side check out their responses, offers of goodwill that are often way too low or deal with the rejection letters and legal terms...

Remember 75 % of something is more than 100% of nothing..!!!!!!!

Rant over

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

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

The appeal in the case of Harrison v Black Horse has been heard in the Court of Appeal and is awaiting judgment. Interestingly the Harrisons were represented by Brian Doctor QC who acted for the OFT in the first instance bank charges test case hearing.





Couple go to appeal court in battle over £10,500 'protection'


A COUPLE are fighting a groundbreaking Appeal Court battle claiming they were mis-sold payment protection insurance by a lender.

Elaine and Andrew Harrison's case is the first of its kind to go before the court.

The Ravenshead couple borrowed £60,000 from Black Horse Ltd in July 2006.

When they signed the deal they also agreed to a payment protection insurance policy from Lloyds TSB General Insurance Ltd.

The policy was sold to them by Black Horse, which, acting as an agent for its related insurance firm, recommended the optional cover.

When they paid off the loan in March 2009, they had paid more than £10,500 for the cover, which protected their loan repayments if they were unable to meet them due to illness.

Out of that sum, Black Horse were paid commission of more than £8,800 - about 87 per cent of the cost of the PPI - which was something they hadn't told Mr and Mrs Harrison about when they took out the insurance, judges heard. The couple went to Worcester County Court and then Manchester Mercantile Court in a bid for damages, claiming they were mis-sold the policy.

The court heard from an expert that the policy was expensive, and that similar cover could have been obtained elsewhere for about £2,000.

But their claim was rejected, first by a district judge and then by Judge Waksman QC in November last year.

Mr and Mrs Harrison have now taken their fight to the Court of Appeal where they are arguing that the failure of Black Horse to disclose the high level of commission the firm would receive for selling the PPI resulted in an "unfair relationship" between lender and borrower.

Their lawyers argued that, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, they were entitled to money back.

Brian Doctor, QC, acting for the couple, said: "The claimants did not have an informed choice, and did not have their eyes open, owing to the non-disclosure of the commission."

Nicholas Elliott, QC, for Black Horse, urged the judges to uphold the previous decisions, saying the Harrisons were told the PPI was optional and could be cancelled and they were under no obligation to buy it.

The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, Lord Justice Patten and Lord Justice Tomlinson reserved judgment on the case until an unspecified date.


Couple go to appeal court in battle over Pounds 10,500 | Nottingham Evening Post | Find Articles at BNET

Does anybody know if this judgment has been handed down yet?

I have recently won a High Court Appeal on the grounds of the payment of secret commission and am currently awaiting a remit to County Court for 'further consideration' on my UR claim as a result.

The other side tried to use this case in their defence but His Lordship was having none of it! It'd just be nice if I could tell them that their only feeble effort has been repealed