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......

After a short consultation the FSA has published it's guidance to banks on the Customer Contact Letters (CCLs) that they will be sending out as part of the Root Cause Analysis requirements of the PPI Policy Statement 10/12.


Summary of feedback http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/gu...17-summary.pdf

Guidance http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/guidance/fg12-17.pdf

[EXC]

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

Capital One have been caught out mis-selling PPI in the US.

http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...0,450326.story

[michael]

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

“We are putting companies on notice that these deceptive practices are against the law and will not be tolerated," Richard Cordray, director of the consumer bureau, said of the agency's first major enforcement action since starting operations a year ago.

I wonder if that's the first of many

[leclerc]

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18994278

[EXC]

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

Tomorrow (Saturday 4 August) Radio 4 are broadcasting the first of a four part series 'Fixing Broken Banking' which kicks off by examining the PPI scandal with testimony from industry insiders - including our own LB member leclerc who was interviewed for the programme.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ldg5v

[Class Act]

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

EXC, do you know which banks have started Root Cause Analysis yet? i believe you have previously gained this info directly from the FSA? be int to know as i heard a very big player in this field may be doing little if any RCA!

[EXC]

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

EXC, do you know which banks have started Root Cause Analysis yet? i believe you have previously gained this info directly from the FSA? be int to know as i heard a very big player in this field may be doing little if any RCA!

That was a year ago - see below.

Although I'd imagine that most big players would be conducting RCA, it doesn't necessarily mean that the RCA would trigger customer contact excercises. Afterall RCA in itself is just an internal sales review process.

I do know that Northern Rock and Barclaycard are conducting customer contact excercises based on posts on MSE. I have faith in the FSA's monitoring of the RCA requirements but I suspect that such is the volume of regular PPI complaints, the FSA are giving them more time with completing RCA.


Freedom of Information: Right to know request

Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), for the following information.

“1) Given that the Judicial Review proceedings effectively delayed firms' implementation of the PS 10/12, what is the revised implementation date for the Root Cause Analysis requirements?

2) As priority has been given to the fair handling complaints, is there a separate, later implementation date for Root Cause Analysis for the firms that were granted an extension to dealing with complaints beyond the standard 8 week period.

3) What is the revised time table for the monitoring of the Root Cause Analysis requirements?

4) To date how many firms’ if any, have either initiated customer contact exercises under the Root Cause Analysis requirements of PS 10/12 (as distinct from past business reviews already agreed) or have indicated an intention to do so. Please note I am not asking for any firm specific data.”

Your request has now been considered. I can confirm that we hold the information you have requested which is enclosed.

For point 1 of your request, firstly we would clarify that the requirement for firms to undertake Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is not new. It has been a requirement under DISP 1.3.3R since the FSA began regulating general insurance in 2005. DISP 1.3.3R requires a firm to put in place appropriate controls and take reasonable steps to ensure that in handling complaints it identifies any recurring or systemic problems, for example by analysing causes of individual complaints to identify underlying root causes common to types of complaints; considering whether such root causes may affect other processes or products; and where reasonable to do so, take action to correct such root causes.
Policy Statement (PS) 10/12 added to the above long established requirement by including a new DISP Appendix 3 which contains:

a) guidance on what a firm might need to consider in the PPI context when undertaking RCA; and
b) further guidance setting out particular factors which a firm should consider when determining whether it ought to act in respect of the position of those people that had not complained but nonetheless might have been adversely affected by systemic problem(s) identified in its sales practices relating to PPI, such as the scope and severity of the detriment that might have arisen, and whether it is fair and reasonable for the firm to undertake a proactive remediation exercise.

The DISP Appendix 3 guidance (that came into force on 1 December 2010) shows that it is each firm's own responsibility to deliver fair outcomes and treat customers fairly in accordance with Principle 6 (to the extent that it applies). The responsibility for conducting RCA and identifying any appropriate course of own-initiative action therefore rests with each regulated firm.

In view of the delay caused by the Judicial Review proceedings, we have decided to begin monitoring firms’ compliance with our RCA requirements, in early 2012.
In PS 10/12 at page 30 we ask that firms retain records of their RCA of PPI sales problems and failings, their considerations and decisions about whether and what own initiative actions are required as a result, the scope, nature and results of the actions taken, including any dealings with individual consumers included in the scope of the firm's own initiative actions. We will draw on these records in the course of our monitoring work.

For point 2 of your request there is not a separate, later implementation date for RCA for the firms that were granted an extension to deal with complaints beyond the standard 8 week period.

For point 3 of your request, as mentioned above, we intend to begin monitoring firms’ compliance with our RCA requirements, from early 2012.

For point 4 of your request, based on the recorded information that we hold, the FSA is aware of 4 firms who have either (i) initiated customer contact exercises or (ii) indicated an intention to do so. However, please note that the FSA has not, at this stage, actively been seeking or verifying information on this aspect of firms’ activities, given that we intend to monitor firms’ compliance with our RCA requirements, from early 2012. Therefore this figure cannot be considered an accurate total of the number of firms who have initiated customer contact exercises in line with our guidance set out in PS 10/12 or intend to do so.

If you have any queries then please contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Emma Binning| Operation Services | Information Access |
Financial Services Authority
25 The North Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5HS

[EXC]

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

Unfair relationship: another nail in the (PPI) coffin

Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Limited & LL Processing (UK) Limited (in Liquidation)

On 4 October 2012, Recorder Yip QC sitting in the Manchester County Court handed down one of the first judgments in PPI litigation since the Harrison v Black Horse appeal was withdrawn from the Supreme Court. In Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Limited & LL Processing (UK) Limited (in Liquidation), the Court was faced with a claim which had already been subject to four amendments with another proposed at the start of the trial. As a result, the claim was heard over the course of four days......

Mrs Plevin’s claim therefore failed in its entirety. Against this, Recorder Yip QC considered the conduct of Mrs Plevin’s legal representatives, Miller Gardner. Their costs, including a very significant ATE insurance premium, amounted to some £320,000 by the time of trial as against a maximum claim value of some £5,000. Despite the level of costs incurred, Recorder Yip QC also found that Miller Gardner had failed to get to the bottom of the factual case, this had caused the repeated amendments to Mrs Plevin’s claim and the eventual abandonment at trial of all but two of the heads of claim, and that there could be “no justification” for the way in which the claim had proceeded.......

Recorder Yip QC held that as a result, and given her “real concerns” over Miller Gardner’s conduct, it would be appropriate to order that Mrs Plevin pay Paragon’s costs on the indemnity basis in relation to the entirety of the action. This is the strongest order that a Court can make and is illustrative of the displeasure with which Miller Gardner’s conduct was regarded. It was clear from the amount in question as against the costs incurred that the litigation had been run only to benefit Mrs Plevin’s solicitors; and not to achieve the best result for her.....

Full case summary attached.

[EXC]

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

I just need to highlight a popular misconception that underwriters can be made liable for PPI mis-selling claims under sec 56 of the Consumer Credit Act, of which this is one of numerous examples http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...inance-company

PPI (or any insurance product) isn't covered by the CCA even where the loan or credit card it's attached to is.

6. ......Insurance products are regulated under the Financial Serviceand Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) even if the linked credit agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) or is unregulated.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/guidance/gc11_26.pdf

[Bill-K]

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

The problem as I see it through my tainted specs is that there are possibly several 'culprits' - and of course each one will try and offload the responsibility on to the others. The actual 'mis-selling' was 'committed' by whoever conned the borrower into buying the PPI at the outset. This may have been some 'Ersatz' sales jerk in the lender's branch office - or it may have been the lender themselves - via a mailshot. Other scenarios exist, of course - but the actual 'mis-selling' is down to dear old "Del-Boy" himself, bless his gold lamé sox.

The actual 'responsibility' for this needs to be clarified in many cases, I believe - and Contract Law may need to be made clear to BOTH sides of this argument. ATM, I fear that this is clearer to those who draw up those contracts - and then get us to sign them in our ignorance and desperation.

[EXC]

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

I agree it needs clarification but as a rule of thumb the liability is relatively straight forward. In the vast majority of cases liability falls with seller - whoever that may be - which includes brokers.

Underwriters can, in some circumstances, be held responsible for the sales process of their agents or those acting as agents.

As I understand it the distinction between brokers and agents is that agents exclusively sell the insurance procucts of a particular underwriter whereas brokers offer a choice.

[di30]

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

Would just like to add my little bit in regards of underwriters, and with mine failing with the broker, mainly down to the fact they were non fsa regulated and time lapsing, so I researched some info online, and raised my complaint with the Underwriter - then succeeded, just recently.

Underwriters/Insurers still have some responsibility of when the policy was sold to the customer.
When they have Intermediaries/Advisers selling insurance products on their behalf, the policies are referred back to the Underwriters.

The Underwriters have a duty to check and make sure that the policy was sold correctly, and to ensure it suits Customer's requirements.

It is understood that Underwriters/Insurers do have a liability when Insurance products are sold, even if they were/are not present at the selling of the product.

The duties of the Underwriter include, evaluating an individual before issuing an Insurance policy.
It is a very important duty that an Insurance Underwriter must perform, must analyse the client's risk before issuing the policy, for example, such as Current Health Problems.

Underwriters/Insurers should analyse Insurance Applications determine whether they should be accepted or rejected.

[EXC]

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

You did very well there Di.

Where is the opinion you quoted from?

[di30]

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

You did very well there Di.

Where is the opinion you quoted from?

Thank you.

I done a google research some time ago, saved the info on file somewhere, will try digging it out, then I checked out the underwriter.

[EXC]

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



Former BBA chief mulled resigning over PPI fight





(Reuters) - The public face of Britain's banks during the financial crisis considered resigning several times over her members' fight against compensating customers mis-sold loan insurance.

The British Bankers' Association (BBA) mounted the challenge in 2011 against principles from the Financial Services Authority (FSA) on how lenders should contact customers about the mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI).Angela Knight, CEO of the trade body at the time, said she had been against going to court, preferring faster ways of agreeing a common approach to compensation.

She was worried about political consequences if the BBA won, saying her unease was well known inside the UK trade body.

"I thought of leaving the BBA on a number of occasions before I did," Knight told a parliamentary commission on banking standards.

"Sometimes you will hold your nose and go through the lobby on the basis you can sort it out better than to say 'No, I am going elsewhere'," she told the panel of MPs.
The commission is expected to recommend legislative changes to help regain public trust in the UK banking sector.

Loan insurance mis-selling is Britain's biggest retail financial produce scandal, with banks such as HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds and RBS having set aside a total of 12 billion pounds to cover compensation.

Knight defended the banks during her five years at the helm of the BBA from April 2007, near the start of a financial crisis that triggered public anger over taxpayer bailouts of banks and the bonuses they paid top staff.

"It made it difficult to go to the pub for a drink or travel on a train as people recognised me," Knight said.

MPs challenged her for not barring BBA members for bringing the industry into disrepute, given the PPI and Libor scandals.

Knight said she had made "very pointed points" to some bankers and asked for some people to be changed, but had decided not to go public on this.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/0...90810V20130109