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

[Bill-K]

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

...EXACTLY the position I'm now in with Egg!

Yeah, innit just ? Makes my blood boil - and I really don't enjoy being brought to the boil by an addled egg !!!

Point taken, EXC. It is ridiculous that such an apparently detailed and comprehensive document as Disp App should be so ambiguous. I still think we can use it to demand that the lender provides more than just the totals. If we can demand that they provide the 'methodology' used in arriving at these totals (as is my interpretation of 3.9.4), then we will still have a lot more than we are currently being given.

With the methodology - AND the totals - we should still be able to make a far better judgement than we can at present. The actual figures used in the calculations would not need to be seen unless and until the offer is rejected and passed to the FOS (or whoevva) for scrutiny. As things stand, we are forced to reject offers in relative ignorance. If we are better able to understand the calculations, then this would benefit the FOS and the lenders, because it would remove from the process those claims that we might have accepted, had we known more about the calculation methods.

So, I believe there is some incentive for both the FOS and the lenders to be more forthcoming. Of course, though, the difficulty is that this would be like trying to explain to an ostrich that its' @$$ is a prominent target, when it has its' head buried in the sand !!!

[EXC]

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

Nice one Bill but playing devil's advocate here the DISP APP, although PPI specific, doesn't clearly define that the offer amount should be stated. And saying that the basis on which and how the compensation is calculated doesn't necessarily mean that the actual calculation has to be provided - just an explanation of the theory of it.

I reckon that it's this ambiguity that the banks are exploiting and clearly the FSA has made a pig's ear of it.

The firm should make any offer of redress to the complainant in a fair and balanced way. In particular, the firm should explain clearly to the complainant the basis for the redress offered including how any compensation is calculated and, where relevant, the rescheduling of the loan, and the consequences of accepting the offer of redress.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/hb-releas...rel108DISP.pdf

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

Bill, good post m8. Which is EXACTLY the position I'm now in with Egg!

[Bill-K]

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

I've been wondering about the issue of whether bank's should provide specific details of the amount of redress offered in a final response - rather than just saying how it will be calculated - within the given period (8,12 or 16 weeks).

The final response rules in DISP are ambiguous in that they only require the firm to ''offer redress or remedial action'' where due but doesn't state whether the amount should be specified. My view is that a 'final response' should include the amount as it is at that point where the complainant has to decide whether the remedy offered is satisfactory enough not to escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman.

The article in today's Guardian seems to suggest that the FSA does indeed require banks to specify the amount of redress in the final response letter

This has been a constant annoyance to me, too, EXC. My argument has always been that - in order for a claimant to decide whether or not to accept an offer in full and final settlement - he needs to be able to make an informed decision. Such a decision cannot be made without knowing what the offer actually is - and how it has been calculated.

All too often, we have found claimants being offered amounts which do not tally with our own calculations. But because we have not been allowed to see how the offers have been calculated, we have no option other than to conclude that the amounts are incorrect, and suggest that the claimant rejects it.

When such 'calculations' are provided, they are generally no more than a list of the elements of each offer - and certainly do NOT show how these elements have been calculated.

It is my understanding of Disp/App 3.9.4 that, if an understandable explanation of how the redress had been calculated is NOT provided, then the claim has not actually been settled in full.

Disp/App 3.9.4:-

The firm should make any offer of redress to the complainant in a fair and balanced way. In particular, the firm should explain clearly to the complainant the basis for the redress offered including how any compensation is calculated and, where relevant, the rescheduling of the loan, and the consequences of accepting the offer of redress.

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

According to the Mail

must be right then :flypig:

[EXC]

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

According to the Mail 80% of PPI claimants are now using Claims Management Companies.

After being conned by banks over PPI, millions could lose out on compensation due to unscrupulous claims firms | This is Money

[leclerc]

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

Nice positive spin for the FSA whilst they continue to allow the ridiculous state of affairs that exists allowing 16 weeks to investigate and then another 8 weeks to calculate and pay the redress (up to today, then 12+8)

When we search back and see how the FSA "Demanded" that the industry did not place claims on hold during the JR, yet did nothing to penaliose them when they ignored this

In fact, they rewarded them by allowing them extended timelines when in fact they should have made record fines possible to give the banks the kick up the arse they need

Its obvious from searching around that the banks will now abuse the 31st August deadline, both by exceeding it because they couldnt care less about the light fines they receive and by sending out negative responses en masse so they meet the deadlines on paper

The 8 weeks to calculate redress will not always be in place. The extensions were put in place due to the banks putting on hold complaints but this hold has never stopped claimants going to the FOS prior to the claim being dealt with by the banks. As the number of claims decrease the bank will not have the argument that they can extend times for dealing with claim payouts because the argument about the volumes of claims being dealt with will not wash.

[EXC]

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

I've been wondering about the issue of whether bank's should provide specific details of the amount of redress offered in a final response - rather than just saying how it will be calculated - within the given period (8,12 or 16 weeks).

The final response rules in DISP are ambiguous in that they only require the firm to ''offer redress or remedial action'' where due but doesn't state whether the amount should be specified. My view is that a 'final response' should include the amount as it is at that point where the complainant has to decide whether the remedy offered is satisfactory enough not to escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman.

The article in today's Guardian seems to suggest that the FSA does indeed require banks to specify the amount of redress in the final response letter:




HSBC faces trouble over PPI complaints as deadline looms

Bank fails to tell all victims mis-sold payment protection insurance how much compensation they will receive.


HSBC could find itself in trouble with the Financial Services Authority after it emerged the bank will fail to meet a deadline for clearing its backlog of payment protection insurance (PPI) mis-selling complaints.Six banking groups, including HSBC, were given until midnight on Wednesday to resolve PPI mis-selling claims that were put on hold during the long court battle over the way people's complaints were to be assessed.

It is understood HSBC will miss the deadline because it has failed to tell all its affected customers whose claims have been successful how much compensation they are to be offered. There was speculation that another bank may be set to miss the target by a very small amount.

The FSA has already warned it is "not afraid to take tough action" against any firms that do not deal appropriately with complaints. Consumer body Which? said any banks failing to meet the deadline should be punished. However, HSBC may be hoping that its pledge to have all its cases sorted out by the end of this week means the regulator will take a lenient view.

The six banks – HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds Banking Group, Royal Bank of Scotland, the Co-operative Bank and Egg – were granted the temporary extension by the FSA to ensure their backlogs of complaints were handled properly.
Many firms had decided to put some or all of their PPI cases on hold when the banking industry mounted a legal challenge to the FSA's new complaint handling measures. The banks abandoned their challenge in May, opening the way for millions of people to receive compensation totalling billions of pounds.

It is understood that the banks were supposed to send out letters telling people whether their complaints had been upheld or not, and, in the case of those individuals who were successful, at the very least provide information about how much money they were likely to receive. The redress is typically taking the form of a refund of premiums paid plus interest.

HSBC has been sending out these "decision letters", but some have not contained all the necessary information about redress.

In a statement to the Guardian, a bank spokesman said: "Over the past 12 weeks we have been in weekly contact with the FSA over our processing of customer PPI complaints. We have already written to all customers whose complaints were on hold due to the judicial review with a decision on their complaint, and will have communicated the final redress amount to all customers with an upheld complaint by the end of this week."

He claimed the regulator was "supportive of our approach", though it was not clear whether the FSA shares this view.

Earlier this year it emerged that while Lloyds Banking Group had put aside £3.2bn for compensation, HSBC had made provisions for £270m.

Banks and other companies have had to look back at past PPI sales, even where people have not complained, and contact customers if necessary.

With the FSA deadline now looming, Which? executive director Richard Lloyd said: "There's no excuse for banks not to have cleared the backlog of complaints caused by the judicial review. Any firms that have not met the 31 August deadline should face tough enforcement action."

He added: "The FSA should require banks to be more transparent about their complaint-handling processes, to show they are improving the way they handle customer disputes. Anyone who thinks they were mis-sold PPI should contact their bank immediately and, if they're not happy with the response, go to the Financial Ombudsman Service."

Those who think they were mis-sold a PPI policy – perhaps because they were told the insurance was compulsory or were not asked about pre-existing medical conditions – and have so far taken no action should complain first to their bank or loan provider. If the complaint is not dealt with to their satisfaction within eight weeks, they can take their case to the Financial Ombudsman Service.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/30/hsbc-payment-protection-insurance?INTCMP=SRCH

[dogtired]

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

“We remain 100 per cent committed to ensuring that where consumers were mis-sold PPI they will receive the appropriate redress from firms, and we are monitoring firms’ progress to ensure this is done properly. Where we find that this not to be the case, we are not afraid to take tough action.”

Appen they have never heard of Welcome Finance and Black Horse then :tinysmile_aha_t:

oh yes our "friends" Welcome.
They appear to be letting them do there own thing regarding redress, we rejected the "offer" from Welcome two years ago as they were "allowed" to rewrite the loans and, as yet, not heard of any one getting anything back from them or FCS. :tinysmile_aha_t:

[EXC]

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

BBA statement following the publication of the FSA PPI complaint redress figures1

"The BBA's members are fully committed to handling PPI complaints as speedily as possible in accordance with the FSA's policy statement. This follows the judgment passed down by the High Court on 20th April 2011. “The higher figures for payouts in May and June are not unexpected as this immediately follows the end of the court case.

“If customers feel an existing complaint is not being dealt with properly or they may still have a claim they should contact their bank. There is no need to use a Claims management company as, where a refund is due, it is made without fees or charges taken off.”


http://www.bba.org.uk/media/article/...int-redress-fi

[mosten]

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

shed loads of black horse rejection letters hitting the doormats this morning..

strange since lloydstsb seem to be fine still ....

[enaid]

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

“We remain 100 per cent committed to ensuring that where consumers were mis-sold PPI they will receive the appropriate redress from firms, and we are monitoring firms’ progress to ensure this is done properly. Where we find that this not to be the case, we are not afraid to take tough action.”

Appen they have never heard of Welcome Finance and Black Horse then :tinysmile_aha_t:

[ncf355]

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

Nice positive spin for the FSA whilst they continue to allow the ridiculous state of affairs that exists allowing 16 weeks to investigate and then another 8 weeks to calculate and pay the redress (up to today, then 12+8)

When we search back and see how the FSA "Demanded" that the industry did not place claims on hold during the JR, yet did nothing to penaliose them when they ignored this

In fact, they rewarded them by allowing them extended timelines when in fact they should have made record fines possible to give the banks the kick up the arse they need

Its obvious from searching around that the banks will now abuse the 31st August deadline, both by exceeding it because they couldnt care less about the light fines they receive and by sending out negative responses en masse so they meet the deadlines on paper

[EXC]

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

FSA/PN/074/2011

30 August 2011
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) today published details of the amount of redress paid by firms during the first six months of 2011 to consumers who have complained about the way they were sold payment protection insurance (PPI).

The data shows that 16 firms, representing 92 per cent* of PPI complaints received in the first half of 2011, have paid a total of £215 million in redress between January and June 2011 inclusive. In May and June alone, following the dismissal of the industry’s legal challenge to the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service (the Ombudsman), £102 million was paid out.

The monthly totals, with cumulative totals in brackets, are:

• January - £29 million (£29 million)
• February - £31 million (£60 million)
• March - £28 million (£88 million)
• April - £25 million (£113 million)
• May - £37 million (£150 million)
• June - £65 million (£215 million)

The figures include the value of ex-gratia payments made to complainants and cases settled by the Ombudsman.

The FSA is publishing this data as a simple measure to allow firms, consumers and other interested parties to keep track of the progress being made. The FSA will continue to publish this data on an ongoing monthly basis accompanied by a running total.

The FSA has also created a step by step video guide featuring the FSA’s head of consumer affairs, Chris Pond, explaining the process of how to complain to financial services providers. You can view this video now on our website.

Margaret Cole, interim managing director of the FSA’s conduct business unit, commented:

“The treatment of PPI complainants has left an indelible stain on the financial industry’s record. By releasing these figures we’re providing a useful measure of firms’ progress that can be tracked on an ongoing basis.

“While the amount of redress paid in May and June is unsurprisingly large in the wake of the judicial review, looking ahead we expect the amounts to vary somewhat as firms clear their backlogs while dealing with complaints as well.

“We remain 100 per cent committed to ensuring that where consumers were mis-sold PPI they will receive the appropriate redress from firms, and we are monitoring firms’ progress to ensure this is done properly. Where we find that this not to be the case, we are not afraid to take tough action.”

* the remaining eight per cent consists of approximately 400 other firms.

FSA publishes amount of redress paid to PPI complainants in first half of 2011

[skv123]

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

Furthermore we have today had offers from BH stating they have upheld part of the complaint and will offer the difference between what was paid to settle and a proportionate rebate + 8% on the difference. Lots of consumers may find themselves fooled by such an offer as it states "upheld" and mentions the "8%"

Read more at: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in...... - Page 171 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

isnt this what Fos are saying is now acceptable?

I understand this thread has moved on but the offers lacked a refund of any PPI paid whilst the loan was active. Just the difference between what was paid on early settlement and what should have been paid.