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......

They're not required to so it's hardly surprising in my view.

Really?
Not what many consumers were led to believe, as per the judicial review.

[EXC]

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

Factually, firms such as RBS for example have not contacted all their customers who were mis-sold PPI; RBS know full well who these customers are!

They're not required to so it's hardly surprising in my view.

[Angry Cat]

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

The figures were circulated to the media by the FSA without publishing them as a press release.

How curious?

One wonders just why these incorrect calculations were circulated to the media by the FSA, when they are clearly incorrect.

...Fewer than 6,000 of the backlog are now outstanding.

Margaret Cole of the FSA said: "We are encouraged that most firms have used the time extension to clear the backlog of complaints received during the judicial review."

I take the view that it would be impossible for the FSA to know the extent of each and every mis-sold/mis-applied case with with each and every bank.
Furthermore many, many customers who were in dispute with these banks had their accounts sold off to debt buying firms. The banks just off-loaded their mis-sold PPI problems, rather than dealing with them, as they should have.

Factually, firms such as RBS for example have not contacted all their customers who were mis-sold PPI; RBS know full well who these customers are!
The other banks are following suit...

The banks run rings around the wimpish FSA.
How sad, when the general consumer thought the FSA could have been akin to superman, rather than just a weak wimp.
Margaret Cole, needs to recalculate her incorrect figure of 5,999 that remain in the backlog.

[leclerc]

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

TBD. are those percentages the claims put in prior to the end of the JR?

"PPI complaints still with the firm but put on hold during the judicial review will receive a decision by the end of August;"

The above is the definition that they should have been dealing with in regards of that 97%

[EXC]

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

To be fair Tuttsi, it would be totally misleading of me if I was to say that none of our clients have had payouts, because some have. However, 97% isn't anywhere near my calculations.

I would say as a guesstimate, out of all the complaints that we had put on hold, the following applies:

20% have been resolved and paid out.
30% have had firm settlement offers confirming figures (but no money has changed hands).
30% have an offer to settle, but no figures whatsoever.
and finally, 20% are still awaiting a final response.

The FSA aren't saying that 97% have had payouts - only that their complaints have been processed. And your 80% of compalints that have been processed isn't a million miles off.

[The_Big_Dog]

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

Out of interest has anyone here had a payout yet or at least a promise of one?

It does seem rather odd that Margaret Cole from the FSA could make such a ridiculous statement which is more than likely unfounded. I wonder where she gets her information from?

To be fair Tuttsi, it would be totally misleading of me if I was to say that none of our clients have had payouts, because some have. However, 97% isn't anywhere near my calculations.

I would say as a guesstimate, out of all the complaints that we had put on hold, the following applies:

20% have been resolved and paid out.
30% have had firm settlement offers confirming figures (but no money has changed hands).
30% have an offer to settle, but no figures whatsoever.
and finally, 20% are still awaiting a final response.

I'm very confident of those figures and I'm reasonably sure that most of the CMC's posting on here will agree with me, and the FOS can't deny it either, because we're still getting their 'X Lender wishes to settle as a gesture of goodwill following our involvement letters' on JR hold complaints'.

As you can see - no mention of 97% anywhere - maybe they're getting it mixed up and 97% of everything the FSA and FOS say is total excrement!

As a CMC, I've got 2 huge headaches at the moment (thankfully, paying the mortgage is not one of them anymore, because the 20% of claims that have been paid have taken care of paying the bills), however, I digress. Firstly, it's managing clients expectations. I'm getting more and more calls from clients asking where their settlement is. I've kept all my clients up to date on whats happening, but in the back of my mind, I'm wondering whether the client thinks it's me and I'm not working hard on their behalf and not giving it 100%. Theres so much bad press surrounding CMC's at the moment - it grates me a bit to think that a client believes I'm not giving it my all.

Secondly (and this is the biggest one) - what the hell do I do now with unresolved cases? Sticking a N1 through their door is out, because the majority of claims coming before the Courts are losing, so I'm not going to get any joy with the Judiciary. There's also the issue of issuing on the back of a gesture of goodwill - it won't stack legally - so, Courts out (unless Harrison gets overturned on appeal).

FOS? I've lost total faith in them - their decisions stink to high heaven and theres the ridiculous time it's going to take them to look at it and give a decision. FOS seem to be the lesser of the 2 evils, but I'm not confident using them. I had an Ombudsman decision last week - it's the first one that I've ever lost with an actual Ombudsman - it concerned Capital One and pre existing diabetes. When the client took out the card, the diabetes was controlled by diet, however, still pre-existing. It gradually worsened up to a point our client was medically retired because of it. Cap One denied the claim, however, the Ombudsman didn't see anything wrong with the sale and stated that 'in his opinion, when the card was taken out, the client wouldn't have been aware of any deterioration in his health, therefore, at the time of sale, the policy was suitable for his needs' - totally crazy:tinysmile_aha_t:

Frustration is not the word at the moment! The banks are being allowed to ride roughshod all over everyone and getting away with it. They're the baddies in the Western film shooting up the small town, taking over the saloon and not paying for their drinks. Unfortunately for us, the sheriff (FSA) and his deputy (FOS), are either too incompetent or lazy to get up off their arses and do something about it, or they completely ignore the problem and hope it'll go away quietly - it won't.

TBD.

[EXC]

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

Oh god! no wonder I couldn't find any link on their site.

Indeed. The Times said the would give the deadline figures when they reported the redress amounts a few days earlier.

''Banks are also scrambling to meet the FSA’s deadline of tonight to write to customers whose cases were put on hold during the legal fight to tell them whether they will receive compensation. The FSA will check whether the banks have met the deadline and may make a statement this week.''

[leclerc]

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

The figures were circulated to the media by the FSA without publishing them as a press release.

Oh god! no wonder I couldn't find any link on their site. I found the figures of redress which exclude FOS claims(small print) or 8% or 400 other providers of PPI.

[EXC]

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

Can someone tell me where that information that the BBC has published has actually come from?

The figures were circulated to the media by the FSA without publishing them as a press release.

[ncf355]

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

This was at 8% over 9 yrs?

Nope,

that was in a seperate column, this interest I'm talking about is the interest they have paid back that was supposedly the amount charged on the PPI whilst it sat on the card balance

[enaid]

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

I complained regards my RBS payout amount

They provided a spreadsheet where (as an example) a payment of £13.66 PPI premium from May 2002 resulted in £1.30(ish) interest payment, this on a card bearing 16% APR (as a rough, and VERY geneerous, average)

This was at 8% over 9 yrs?

[leclerc]

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

Can someone tell me where that information that the BBC has published has actually come from?

[Fortinbras]

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

banks are now playing ball again,

Yes, like premiership footballers, feigning injury (Angie's blatherings), ignoring the rules, insulting the referee and taking lots of money home!

Fortinbras

[ncf355]

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

I complained regards my RBS payout amount

They provided a spreadsheet where (as an example) a payment of £13.66 PPI premium from May 2002 resulted in £1.30(ish) interest payment, this on a card bearing 16% APR (as a rough, and VERY geneerous, average)

[EXC]

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

I think it's because uphold rates have fallen to 55% at the fos - the banks are loving it because now, it's 50/50 whether the complaint gets upheld or not.

To be fair the reason that FOS uphold rates fell to 55% is because of the banks refusal to engage with them during the JR. It wasn't that less complaints were being upheld in relation to those that weren't but in relation to the volume they received and could close. The FOS were at pains to point this out in the 2010/11 annual review and that because banks are now playing ball again, they expect uphold rates to increase accordingly.