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

[ncf355]

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

Mr Justice: "so Mr Bank you genuinely and honestly completed this DAN document"

A random bank "Oh yes M'lud, honest and everything"

Mr Justice"I believe your statement completely and utterly, even though you believe over £7,000 (inc interest) is a completely reasonable premium for insurance on a £15,000 loan and quite obviously have no gain to make from lying through your teeth, I therefore find in your favour"

Completely fair, what a fantastic result!

[leclerc]

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

But if you argue in court then you have got to argue that a rogue employee made the sale(arguing that you would have to know that the employee was sacked for misselling---difficult to find out, and that he clearly failed to follow procedure---the bank would have paid up prior to going to court if they felt that was the case).

[Paul210]

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

Mr Justice: "so Mr Bank you genuinely and honestly completed this DAN document"

A random bank "Oh yes M'lud, honest and everything"

Mr Justice"I believe your statement completely and utterly, even though you believe over £7,000 (inc interest) is a completely reasonable premium for insurance on a £15,000 loan and quite obviously have no gain to make from lying through your teeth, I therefore find in your favour"

Completely fair, what a fantastic result!

The danger of ill advised Litigation:

"Mr Best’s evidence was “very vague about the interview he had with Mr Waller. His answers were often contradicted by written documents he had been given or sent”;"
http://www.lexology.com/library/deta...5-1055cc3bab2d

It seems that where the claimants evidence is less than watertight the courts tend to rely on the defendant firms procedures, in other words the onus lies on the claimant to demonstrate procedures were not followed rather than on the defendant to proove that they were. Poor quality claimant evidence ssems to be a recurring theme throughout current cases against Black Horse,

Theres a lot of these cases getting much further than they should be based on current case law, not that the legal teams mind, no doubt they have the benefit of ATE cover in place. That doesnt however help the poor souls who follow advice from CAG and issue themselves.

[millymollymoo]

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

The danger of ill advised Litigation:

"Mr Best’s evidence was “very vague about the interview he had with Mr Waller. His answers were often contradicted by written documents he had been given or sent”;"
http://www.lexology.com/library/deta...5-1055cc3bab2d

It seems that where the claimants evidence is less than watertight the courts tend to rely on the defendant firms procedures, in other words the onus lies on the claimant to demonstrate procedures were not followed rather than on the defendant to proove that they were. Poor quality claimant evidence ssems to be a recurring theme throughout current cases against Black Horse,

Theres a lot of these cases getting much further than they should be based on current case law, not that the legal teams mind, no doubt they have the benefit of ATE cover in place. That doesnt however help the poor souls who follow advice from CAG and issue themselves.

I agree totally too late now though

I guess though its a bit different though as the ageement shows it crossed out, Still wouldn't of done it after everything I have learn't on here:tinysmile_cry_t:
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

But if you argue in court then you have got to argue that a rogue employee made the sale(arguing that you would have to know that the employee was sacked for misselling---difficult to find out, and that he clearly failed to follow procedure---the bank would have paid up prior to going to court if they felt that was the case).

tell me about it

[EXC]

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

The danger of ill advised Litigation:

"Mr Best’s evidence was “very vague about the interview he had with Mr Waller. His answers were often contradicted by written documents he had been given or sent”;"
http://www.lexology.com/library/deta...5-1055cc3bab2d

It seems that where the claimants evidence is less than watertight the courts tend to rely on the defendant firms procedures, in other words the onus lies on the claimant to demonstrate procedures were not followed rather than on the defendant to proove that they were. Poor quality claimant evidence ssems to be a recurring theme throughout current cases against Black Horse,

Theres a lot of these cases getting much further than they should be based on current case law, not that the legal teams mind, no doubt they have the benefit of ATE cover in place. That doesnt however help the poor souls who follow advice from CAG and issue themselves.

I totally agree.

AFAIK there has only been literally a handful of PPI cases ever won in court and I don't ever recall a CAG claimant being successful.

The barrister in the Best case, John Pugh, takes cases on a CFA basis and like CAG despite the rosey picture he paints on his website the current law was simply not designed with PPI in mind Overview of PPI Litigation

[k77mss]

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

hi guys anybody know antono horta-osorio email address thanxs

[leclerc]

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

hi guys anybody know antono horta-osorio email address thanxs

For lloydsTSB, right?

[k77mss]

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

For lloydsTSB, right?

sorry for HBOS thanxs

[leclerc]

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

sorry for HBOS thanxs

It's LloydsBankingGroup so email him and you'll get the right response from their executive team.

Ok, because Antonio Osorio is on sick leave then you need to go through Tim Tookey who is acting CEO.

tim.tookey@lloydsbanking.com

[k77mss]

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

It's LloydsBankingGroup so email him and you'll get the right response from their executive team.

Ok, because Antonio Osorio is on sick leave then you need to go through Tim Tookey who is acting CEO.

tim.tookey@lloydsbanking.com

thanks for that

[EXC]

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

Yet another PPI case fails in court.

The case summary neatly reflects my view that taking PPI disputes to court in favour of FOS is flawed and dangerous:

''It is also welcome that Mr & Mrs Williams’ reliance on DISP was dismissed. We firmly believe that a borrower has an option: he or she can go to the Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”) or go to the Court instead. The FOS service is free for customers to use. If a claim is made to FOS, then FOS will determine using their “fairness” criteria which allows it a wide discretion. FOS had can take account of the FSA principles and also consider the latest version of DISP rather than the version that was in force when the sale took place. On the other hand the Courts have to determine disputes on the law, using the Civil Procedure Rules and after considering the evidence which will be tested at a trial by cross-examination. If claimants do not come up to proof their claims will be dismissed with costs. A Court will look at the rules in force at the time of the sale and a court cannot give retrospective effect to either the present version of DISP or the FSA’s Policy Statement PS 10/12.''

But try telling that to JudgeFodder.

[Angry Cat]

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

Fobbed off...again: Banks set to miss deadline on paying billions of compensation for mis-sold PPI insurance ¿ but they do have A MILLION complaints to cope with | Mail Online

[leclerc]

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

Interesting to read the above article especially the comments, one allegedly from a former employee of Lloyds:

"I left Lloyds almost a year ago. They now have 160,000 in the queue."

[dogtired]

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

For once a result! Just had a cheque from M and S money just in time for Christmas!
Taken since July though.:santa1::santa1:
D

[k77mss]

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

hi guys could anyone help me does hbos own marbles credit card sent my complaint 18 weeks ago spoke to guy when it was 16 weeks he told me they do own it then when i phoned last week he had doubts that they do own it i hope i've not wasted all this time for nothing :tinysmile_cry_t: thanks for any replies