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

[Angry Cat]

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

You wouldn't be contacted if you'd already complained. It works like a car recall - no point in calling a car in for inspection if it's already been inspected.

Really?

In what context?

Many complained well before the judicial review and were basically told to bog off by the banks concerned.

So are you saying that these consumers would never be contacted again by the firms even though there were systemic failings in their complaint handling?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Lloyds Bank strips five directors of more than £1 million in bonuses

Lloyds Banking Group is to strip five directors of more than £1 million in bonuses as a penalty for a financial scandal that cost the taxpayer-backed bank £3.2 billion last year.


It will be the first time a British bank has exercised a “clawback” option on executive pay packages since the financial crisis and will lead to calls for similar moves at other lenders, including the Royal Bank of Scotland.

The Daily Telegraph has learned that Lloyds is taking back a bonus from senior bankers over their role in the mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI).

Eric Daniels, Lloyds’ former chief executive, will lose at least £360,000 of his 2010 bonus. Four other current and former directors will each have to forgo about £250,000.

The move comes after weeks of pressure from politicians and consumer groups for the banking sector to answer concerns that some bonus awards do not match individual performances.

The Financial Services Authority has also called for Britain’s banks to reflect one of the worst customer mis-selling scandals in recent memory in the pay packages of those responsible.

PPI was often sold alongside loans to cover repayments if borrowers fell ill or lost their jobs. As banks recognised how profitable the product was, they began to push sales even though they were of questionable value for many customers. Concerns grew in 2008 after the consumers group Which? reported that one in three PPI customers had bought “worthless” insurance.

In April last year, the industry lost a case in the High Court to stop customers demanding compensation. Weeks later, Lloyds announced that it would set aside £3.2 billion for likely payouts. Other banks have followed suit, taking the total provision to about £6 billion.

The FSA has since urged banks to claw back bonuses paid out to those who were in charge when the loan insurance was sold. Until now, no bank has done so.

Other than Mr Daniels, the Lloyds directors who will lose a quarter of their 2010 bonus awards are Tim Tookey, the outgoing finance director, Helen Weir, the former head of the retail bank, Truett Tate, the head of Lloyds’ corporate and investment bank who retires this month, and Carol Sergeant, Lloyds’ former head of risk.

Mr Tookey will forgo £235,000 of his £942,000 bonus, Mr Tate £260,000 of his £1.05 million award, Ms Weir £218,000 of her £875,000 bonus. Mr Daniels will lose at least £360,000 of his £1.45 million award. Ms Sergeant’s pay was not disclosed because she was on the executive committee rather than the board, though she is also thought to have had to hand back about £100,000. Since leaving Lloyds last year, she has been made chairman of the Government’s steering group into simple financial products.

An announcement is expected soon, although it may simply be inserted as a clause in the annual report next month.

The bank is able to “claw back” the bonuses, made in shares, because the award was released over three years, so future payments will not now be made.

Mr Daniels, who recently joined the specialist advisory firm StormHarbour, will be made to lose “at least” 25 per cent of his 2010 award. The decision is believed to have been taken by Antonio Horta-Osorio, the new chief executive who has just returned from two months off after suffering from stress and insomnia.
Sources said the former directors were furious with the decision, because they believe they operated within the rules of the time. Some of the directors feel the adjustments are designed to detract from this week’s dire results.

The decision could pave the way for clawbacks at rival banks. Royal Bank of Scotland, which is 83 per cent owned by the taxpayer, was the second largest player in the PPI market behind Lloyds.

Barclays, RBS and the other banks said they would reflect the cost of the PPI scandal in bonuses to be awarded for 2011. Lloyds is also likely to award reduced bonuses for 2011, on top of the clawbacks for 2010, to take into account the bank’s losses. Lloyds, which is 41 per cent state owned, is expected to announce a near-£4 billion loss this Friday as a result of the scandal, while RBS is forecast to post a loss of up to £1 billion.

Very few banks across the world have exercised any bonus clawbacks. However, UBS, the Swiss bank, is clawing back as much as half of the bonuses for 2010.

Nadhim Zahawi, a Tory MP who has campaigned for banking reform, said other bankers should face clawbacks.

“For too long it has appeared to the public that executive jobs at big banks are a one-way bet, no matter what you do you get a huge reward,” he said. “That has to change.”

Lloyds declined to comment last night.



Lloyds Bank strips five directors of more than £1 million in bonuses - Telegraph

Also reported by the BBC:
BBC News - Lloyds takes back bonuses from 10 executives

[leclerc]

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

AC, did any of those who complained before the JR go to the FOS?

Do you have any numbers on how many complained even if that is a rough figure either from the forums/ or data?

I'm not one who likes sweeping statements without some form of evidence for the statement.

[EXC]

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

So are you saying that these consumers would never be contacted again by the firms even though there were systemic failings in their complaint handling?

No.

Root Cause Analysis only applies to systemic failings in sales and not to complaints handling. Customer contact exercises prompted by RCA apply only to ''non-complainants potentially affected by recurrent sales problems.''

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps10_12.pdf

[EXC]

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

This is good news.

It looks like the FSA are going to effectively put the dreaded CPP out of business by requiring them to undertake a past business review under s404 of the Financial Services & Markets Act which means they have to contact ALL the customers they flogged insurance to inviting them to complain.

Read this BBC investigation from 2010 which explains what CPP is all about BBC News - Row over ID theft insurance

From today's Financial Times:


CPP says it could go bust in weeks

CPP, the credit card insurer, has warned it could go bust within weeks after the Financial Services Authority indicated it was likely to impose one of the stiffest penalties yet for misselling.

In a sign of the increasingly tough stance adopted by regulators, the FSA has warned that it could force CPP to pay customers who bought its credit-card protection product hundreds of millions of pounds of compensation in claims that could date back to the regulator’s birth in 2005.

The York-based group also has been asked to abolish its automatic renewals policy, so that customers are forced to actively buy credit card protection every year, people familar with the matter said.

Paul Stobart, chief executive, warned that this would be “massively financially damaging” to the company. “The risk is the whole business is brought down,” he said. The fall from grace came as a severe blow to CPP, which had expanded rapidly since its stock market listing in 2010 but has seen its value fall by more than half since the start of the FSA investigation a year ago.

Shares in the company were suspended on Monday at 103p, valuing the company at just £176m – well below its peak market capitalisation of £561m hit last February. CPP said it was in talks with the FSA with the aim of agreeing a compromise deal within weeks. But although CPP can appeal the decision, Mr Stobart warned a long-running process could “in this case be too late [for the business].”

He warned that more than 1,969 jobs in 16 countries were at risk, including 1,000 in York, as a result of the discussions. The group’s UK business accounts for more than 70 per cent of revenues, more than three-quarters of which comes from renewals.

CPP has been under investigation by the FSA over the sale of so-called identity products since March last year. Identity protection products, which account for one-quarter of group revenues, offer protection for lost or stolen credit cards, including a one-stop service for customers who can make one phone call to cancel all bank and store cards.

The £30-a-year product is sold through banks including Barclays, which decided against renewing its contract with CPP last week, and Santander and RBS, both of which are understood to be reviewing their agreements in the light of the FSA’s investigation.

The move suggests regulators are extending their tough stance on misselling practices to wider concerns over the worth of products themselves. Consumer groups have complained that the policies have been unnecessary since 2009 when banks were made
liable for losses on stolen credit or bank cards. Shares in HomeServe, the domestic repairs insurer which is also under investigation by the FSA, fell amid concerns that they would be next in line for tough action by the FSA.

CPP argues that it is willing to abandon the insurance part of the policy and focus on the identity product’s other advantages, including cover for court and emergency cash if a wallet is lost abroad. It has also revamped its renewals policy by extending the cooling off period – where customers can withdraw – from 14 to 60 days after a contract has been renewed.

The FSA declined to give further details of the discussions but said it had “serious concerns about the manner in which customers were being sold identity theft and card protection policies by the firm.”

[EXC]

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

Fraud firm CPP suspends its shares as mis-selling crisis deepens

Fraud prevention firm CPP was plunged into crisis yesterday – less than two years after its founder pocketed £120million.

Shares in the York-based business were suspended at 103p after bosses warned it could be driven to the wall by a City watchdog probe.

That’s a fraction of the 235p when CPP floated on the stock exchange in March 2010, triggering a windfall for founder Hamish Ogston, who sold a 40% stake in the company.

The 62-year-old, who started the company with £1,000 in 1980 and was given a CBE for his services to business, is now nursing a big paper loss on the 57% shareholding that he kept.

But with those shares still technically worth £100m, he’s unlikely to get much sympathy from CPP’s workforce, including more than 1,300 in the UK, who are facing a nervous wait.

CPP is reeling from an 11-month long investigation by the Financial Services Authority into claims of serious mis-selling of its identity and card protection products, including using alleged pressure selling tactics.

The company yesterday asked for its shares to be suspended after what it called “disproportionate” new demands by the FSA, which it said would “threaten the viability of the business.”

The extra work is thought to involve going back over its records for evidence of possible mis-selling.

The company has more than 11 million policyholders – 4.5 million in the UK.

It came as CPP was rocked by Barclaycard’s decision not to renew a contract with the firm.

CPP, under new boss Paul Stobart, hopes to hammer out a compromise with the FSA in the next couple of weeks.

Even then, it warned that any workload would have a “significant adverse financial impact on the group.”

Boiler repair firm HomeServe has also been hit with a mis-selling scandal, prompting it to announce 200 job losses earlier this month.


Fraud firm CPP suspends its shares as mis-selling crisis deepens - Mirror Online

[Angry Cat]

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

BBC News - PPI compensation payouts near £2bn

[EXC]

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

Answers on a postcard as to who the 4 may be?

Well it looks like one of them is NRAM (Northern Rock) who, according to a thread on MSE, have been contacting customers who had been sold PPI with unsecured loans through Northern Rock's telephone, branch and internet sales channels between 14 January 2005 and 18 March 2008.

Northern Rock PPI Letter - Page 4 - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

And it appears that quite a few have already been refunded.

[dogtired]

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

Way back in October I had two PPI claims with BOS.
One with Cabot out of which I got a small sum of £80.
The other was a Sainsbury card that took longer and eventually got an settlement.
From the letter they said that any remaining balance would be sent to me
Two days later I got a check for the settlement in full.
Then I had demand letters first from Robinson Way and lately Blair Oliver Scott demanding just over £900 this figure has been variable and has gone down by £1!
I have got back in touch with the ombudsman and it is unclear what they are playing at.
If they made a mistake in paying me this amount do I still have to pay this.
I have tried a prove it and sent another £1 but all I have had are more pay up or else letters:
:-(
DT

[dogtired]

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

Way back in October I had two PPI claims with BOS.
One with Cabot out of which I got a small sum of £80.
The other was a Sainsbury card that took longer and eventually got an settlement.
From the letter they said that any remaining balance would be sent to me
Two days later I got a check for the settlement in full.
Then I had demand letters first from Robinson Way and lately Blair Oliver Scott demanding just over £900 this figure has been variable and has gone down by £1!
I have got back in touch with the ombudsman and it is unclear what they are playing at.
If they made a mistake in paying me this amount do I still have to pay this.
I have tried a prove it and sent another £1 but all I have had are more pay up or else letters:
:-(
DT

Suggestions on next course of action anyone?
DT

[leclerc]

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

Way back in October I had two PPI claims with BOS.
One with Cabot out of which I got a small sum of £80.
The other was a Sainsbury card that took longer and eventually got an settlement.
From the letter they said that any remaining balance would be sent to me
Two days later I got a check for the settlement in full.
Then I had demand letters first from Robinson Way and lately Blair Oliver Scott demanding just over £900 this figure has been variable and has gone down by £1!
I have got back in touch with the ombudsman and it is unclear what they are playing at.
If they made a mistake in paying me this amount do I still have to pay this.
I have tried a prove it and sent another £1 but all I have had are more pay up or else letters:
:-(
DT

Was there any money owing on the Sainsbury card? Is there a reason, if the balance was at £0 why you owe the money? They paid out in good faith and you have not received any correspondence from Sainsbury to state that they had made a mistake so I cannot see their issue.

What are BOS wanting money for?

[Bill-K]

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

...this figure has been variable and has gone down by £1!

...I have tried a prove it and sent another £1 but all I have had are more pay up or else letters

This sounds like it is no longer a PPI issue, but one of 'misappropriation,' to put it gently, Dogtired. Sure looks like they are side-stepping your CCA requests. Not nice - and smells like a rat. If you haven't started a thread for this, then I reckon it deserves one of its own. There are others who have had the same problem, where their £1 CCA fee has been effectively 'nicked.'

When they do that, they not only pinch a quid of yours, but they imply guilt of a much deeper nature, I reckon.

[dogtired]

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

Regarding balance, it is also complecated, had been on a payment plan and had no statements, Sainsbury then said I could no longer continue with this plan and for about eleven months I paid the minimum payment until I lost my job and sent them income and expenditure, which continued whilst the ppi was going on, at first they rejected this trying to claim that it was "card protection" The FOS was involved but it took from February to October last year for it to be sorted.
The offer letter came one day and the cheque two days later.
There was a balance on the card at the time and I did understand that I would get any remainder as it is they sent the whole amount.
They transfered it to Robinson Way and then back to Blair Oliver Scott during this time.
Currently they have, reluctantly, agreed to a "hold" of thirty days whilst they "look into" it
So should I start a new thread, will do this on main computer,where would be a good place to put it?

[Angry Cat]

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

This is a problem that many are going to come up against...they pay peanuts for the debts and then want to grab the PPI repayments.

Every case is different, it is up to each individual to weigh up the pros and cons involved in reclaiming.

[Bill-K]

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

I guess this is still really a PPI problem, because that seems to be what is in dispute. So, Sainsbury have refunded you all the PPI, instead of using it to reduce the balance owing ? So, they have effectively given you the choice as to what you do with that refund, when they would normally have given you no choice in the matter.

So, if you choose to spend it on a holiday, then you have chosen not to reduce the balance owing, and therefore the original debt remains at the original 'unreduced' balance, and is still payable. If you choose to reduce the debt by paying this refund to the DCA, then that is what WOULD have happened if Sainsbury had done what they said they would.

Basically, if you choose to keep the PPI refund, then your debt still remains unpaid. That's the way I see it, DT.

[Angry Cat]

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

BBC News - Banks to write to all PPI victims