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

[EXC]

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

Interesting viewing for some.
However, I was left unimpressed...

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?

[Angry Cat]

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

Tonight on BBC Watchdog at 8pm.

''Anne Robinson and the team take a look at the companies offering to handle PPI claims - are bank customers in danger of being fleeced a second time?''

BBC - BBC One Programmes - Watchdog, 15/09/2011

Interesting viewing for some.
However, I was left unimpressed...

[EXC]

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

Tonight on BBC Watchdog at 8pm.

''Anne Robinson and the team take a look at the companies offering to handle PPI claims - are bank customers in danger of being fleeced a second time?''

BBC - BBC One Programmes - Watchdog, 15/09/2011

[Turboman]

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

Hi Steve

Would it be possible to view the actual wordings in your offer letter?

When you say

• Refund of PPI Premiums
• Refund of Compound Interest

The 2 together are in fact the actual PPI Monthly Payments I believe

Which bank was it Steve?

Thanks

Turbs

Heard from the budsman today that a previously not up-held complaint, had been reviewed by the financial business and that they were now prepared to pay full redress in line with the FOS guidlines. This one dates from 2005 and had a PPI payment of £70 a month so that should not be incosiderable.

The redress breaks down thus:

Refund of all PPI premiums
Refund of compound interest
Refund of simple interest less tax
Refund of interest since claim put on hold less tax

Whats quite good is that they knew that the adjudicator had upheld it but would not co-operate so the adjudicator referred it to the ombudsman, but in the meantime they have re-considered which is interesting.

[Bill-K]

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

I'm all for publication - but HOW the feck can it cost THAT MUCH ?

I can post a PDF file here for zilch.

Even if I charged £20 per hour, I would find it hard to justify that.

I want to earn what these jerks do.

What is MY problem ?

I guess I have a conscience.

Dammit.

[MBD23]

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

Many thanks for this, EXC.

The FOS estimates that publication of final decisions will cost about £600,000 in the first year and £200,000

what a waste of money, spend the 800k on getting quicker decisions to consumers

[Bill-K]

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

Many thanks for this, EXC.

Financial ombudsman proposes publication of decisions


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.

[di30]

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

An interesting read:
Problems at the UK Financial Ombudsman Service, incompetent adjudicator and ombudsman

This is interesting Angry Cat, I keep forgetting about this site and think I posted it on here sometime ago lol, still they update it often i believe.

I remember having an ombudsman last year who used to be a Manager with Chelt & Glos, and she also dealt with my case against them, it did not go too well either!

[EXC]

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

Financial ombudsman proposes publication of decisions

Financial businesses will be named in decisions on disputes with consumers, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has proposed. The FOS wants to publish its decisions but will keep consumers' identities secret, it said.

At present, the FOS is under no obligation to publish its rulings, although its website provides anonymised case summaries and technical notes to explain its approach to certain issues, such as complaints about payment protection insurance. On occasion it will make a decision available in full, such as the March 2011 decision on volcanic ash and travel insurance.

As part of its financial regulation reforms, however, the Government wants the service to be more transparent about its work.

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.

The FOS has set out in a consultation paper (28-page / 206KB PDF) what its preferred approach to meeting these requirements would be.

Only final decisions would be published, not the informal opinions of adjudicators in the earlier stages of a dispute, unless there are exceptional circumstances. 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.

The FOS said that it supports the Government's stand on protecting consumers' identities. From a survey of past decisions, it believes that in most cases this would be achieved by redacting or disguising the consumer's name. In a few others, some details may also need to be changed to avoid disclosure.

"Careful drafting of the decision – being mindful of the need to protect consumer information – would therefore be possible, without losing the clarity or effectiveness of the decision itself either for the parties involved or for third-party readers, " the paper said.
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.

The Government's draft legislation does not specify whether or not financial firms should enjoy the same anonymity as consumers. The FOS said that it believes they should not.

"Our initial view is that we should not delete the name of the financial business involved – nor seek to avoid publication of information that would identify the business (and/or brand) involved," the paper states. "In many cases, the identity of the financial business is central to the issue in question, and its identity is often clear from the substance of the decision itself. For example, product names, policy wordings and business practices often form a core part of an ombudsman’s considerations, which might all point to a specific business.

"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.

"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."

The proposals would allow genuinely confidential information to be withheld, but firms would have to persuade the ombudsman that this was necessary.

Only about 11% of cases currently go all the way to determination by the ombudsman. Most are resolved earlier in the process. The FOS estimates that publication of final decisions will cost about £600,000 in the first year and £200,000 a year after that.
The consultation remains open until 9 December 2011. The FOS will publish a summary of responses later in the financial year. In the meantime, it will be carrying out further research with consumers and businesses to assess the likely impact of the proposals.


Financial ombudsman proposes publication of decisions

[Angry Cat]

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

An interesting read:
Problems at the UK Financial Ombudsman Service, incompetent adjudicator and ombudsman

[Bill-K]

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

...Therefore she is happy now just to accept the PPI return + 8% interest.

xx

Thanks for that, Tuttsi. An interesting (and not very nice) departure from the usual PPI methods. I agree that the lump-sum premium plus 8% SI is probably the best that the FOS will elicit. Any further losses consequential to this would probably have to be pursued through the courts, with the usual risk involved.

[Bill-K]

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

oh yes Laurel and Hardy will sort it(exc, am not suggesting you're the fat one either ).

That's another fine mess you'll have gotten Angie and the FOS into !!!

[dogtired]

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

Barclays were only upholding claims that were delayed due to the JR, all other cases i.e. those submitted after this are dealt with under their normal guidelines (although that doesnt necessarily mean you didnt have a case!).

When was your complaint submitted? if before 20 April then should have been caught under their goodwill gesture to uphold, if so its worth pointing this out to them, if not then Im afraid its the FOS lottery for this one.

Yes it was, will try phoning them first then but it would seem it is the FOS lottery

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

Thanks Bill

The whole premium was taken in one hit and the money for this was taken out from their business account before the loan started. It was a nasty pre-condition that they had to take it which was annoying to say the least as the purpose of the loan was to put the funds into the business and losing £1k in PPI premium from a small loan was unspeakable and caused them further loss of cash flow.

My cousin is just pleased now that her claim has been upheld and she will be able to get that money back into the business which will help keep them afloat in these bad times of slow payers. Therefore she is happy now just to accept the PPI return + 8% interest.

xx

Tuttsi, this sounds like a Single-Premium Insurance, where a single 'upfront' payment of PPI was charged, and then added to the total loan amount at the outset. As such, it will have attracted a portion of the account interest which was charged (usually at a compounded rate) to the account each month. I think she should be asking for this as well. Then, finally, she should be getting the 8% SI on BOTH these elements.

HTH.

[leclerc]

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

You will...!!! :beagle:

oh yes Laurel and Hardy will sort it(exc, am not suggesting you're the fat one either ).