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

[EXC]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

The FSA have published the summary minutes of their monthly board meeting in July - this would have been the last board meeting prior to the publication of the final PPI policy statement and open letter detailing the ''new'' rules & requirements that are the subject of the Judicial Review action.

It is clear that even before it's publication the FSA were anticipating a legal challenge from the banks:


''The Board considered each of the recommendations in turn, establishing the reasoning for each of the proposals and considering the issues that had been raised. After due and careful consideration the Board approved each of the Executive’s recommendations, and agreed it should make the proposed instrument, and issue the associated materials, believing that this was the appropriate way to deal with the concerns identified in a proportionate way, notwithstanding the possibility of legal challenge.''

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/board-minutes/july_22.pdf

[Chip Tuesday]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

EXC, Did you see the third white bullet point on page 4?

"the discussion incorporated the following key points... putting on hold the introduction of rules to re-assess previously rejected complaints (not referred to the FOS) since 2005 (pending resolution of the new s404 power)"

Could this be a problem what with the Treasury Order having been enacted after the JR was announced?

CT

[EXC]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

EXC, Did you see the third white bullet point on page 4?

"the discussion incorporated the following key points... putting on hold the introduction of rules to re-assess previously rejected complaints (not referred to the FOS) since 2005 (pending resolution of the new s404 power)"

Could this be a problem what with the Treasury Order having been enacted after the JR was announced?

CT

I'm not sure how it works ie whether it's been enacted or not but the FSA would have to apply to the Treasury for it by way of Parliamentary Order:


''2.12 One line of industry criticism was that if a general review of the numerous previously rejected PPI complaints was required, then this was something that should legally be prescribed through an industry review under section 404 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (s404), which involves a number of significant prior process disciplines. *9''

''*9 Section 404 provides for the establishment of schemes for reviewing past business where there is evidenced widespread or regular failure to comply with the FSA’s rules and consumers are either experiencing, or have the potential to suffer, loss. A scheme must be authorised by the Treasury following an application from the FSA outlining the alleged failure. Treasury authorisation is to be granted by way of Parliamentary order.''

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/cp/cp10_06.pdf

[EXC]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Sorry, the above quote & link is the previous policy statement - 10-06 .

In the final policy statement of August - 10-12 - it states that the FSA are not relying on s404 (even though the banks initially thought they were) because they have ''followed a strategy that we consider swifter and more proportionate''


Does there need to be a problem with complaints handling?
We have been concerned to address the significant potential consumer detriment caused
by weaknesses in firms’ PPI selling practices. Some consumer stakeholders have called for
an industry-wide review of past PPI sales under s404 of FSMA (‘Review of Past Business’) to
do this. But we have followed a strategy that we consider swifter and more proportionate,
consisting of the package of measures discussed in this PS and various other actions (set out
in paragraph 1.5).






2.15 Industry responses, however, have variously raised three main objections to
our statements:

• we are trying to use the provisions in DISP around root cause analysis and
Principle 6 in lieu of a redress scheme under s404 of FSMA (a ‘s404 review’),
which amounts to using them for a purpose other than those that were
intended; or


Our response

• we have long set out, in Treating Customers Fairly publications and enforcement final
notices, our view that such consideration and potential action towards non-complainants
is what fairness requires; and

• this is very different from a s404 review since a firm will only have to act towards
non-complainants if it finds recurring shortcomings in its own sales in the course of
its own root cause analysis (which must be diligent and robust) of such sales (and
complaints about them), whereas in a s404 review it would have to act towards noncomplainants
because it was included in the scope of the s404 review established in
response to a widespread or regular failure by firms.
We agree (and had indicated in our statements in CP10/6) that there is scope for a firm
to consider for itself what action, if any, would be proportionate concerning relevant noncomplainants.
But such action (or inaction) needs to be fair as well as proportionate.

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

[leclerc]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Response from RBS Group.....(my foboffometer was off the scale!!!)

I've been in touch with our PPI team and the following statement applies;

"We are continuing to handle all PPI-related complaints. Where the assessment of the complaint is not affected by the judicial review, these complaints will be handled in the usual way. If your complaint will be impacted by the judicial review, we will write to inform youabout this.

We can assure you that all complaints are being reviewed."

I am seeking clarification on one point.....

[EXC]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

A speech by FSA Director of Insurance Sector last week:


Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)

The issues surrounding PPI are well known. We have recently confirmed a package of measures to protect consumers, and the Competition Commission has announced a point-of-sale prohibition for PPI.

Although there is a judicial review of our PPI complaints handling measures, we strongly believe the package of measures we have outlined is a sensible and fair solution for consumers and the industry alike, and we are vigorously contesting the judicial review.
We will be monitoring the implementation of our guidance closely to ensure real change is delivered.

We understand that depending where you are in the value chain you may feel the responsibility for the PPI issues lies elsewhere. However, the onus is on the entire industry to ensure it treats all customers fairly.

It is worth remembering our 2007 Policy Statement that gives guidance on the responsibilities of providers and distributors for the fair treatment of customers. This has not lost any of its currency.

We are also aware of modified versions of PPI or alternative products being developed and offered to consumers that may well grow in volume. Some of these are insurance products, such as a short-term income protection product that is not linked directly to a specific loan or credit product, and some are within the product features of the credit or loan advanced, often known as a debt waiver.

This is an area where we are keen to ‘intervene early’ and engage with firms. We have started our analysis of the conduct risks they may present. You can expect further communications from us as we develop our thinking in this area.

Marketforce and Institute of Economic Affair's

[righty]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

A speech by FSA Director of Insurance Sector last week:


Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)

The issues surrounding PPI are well known. We have recently confirmed a package of measures to protect consumers, and the Competition Commission has announced a point-of-sale prohibition for PPI.

Although there is a judicial review of our PPI complaints handling measures, we strongly believe the package of measures we have outlined is a sensible and fair solution for consumers and the industry alike, and we are vigorously contesting the judicial review.
We will be monitoring the implementation of our guidance closely to ensure real change is delivered.

We understand that depending where you are in the value chain you may feel the responsibility for the PPI issues lies elsewhere. However, the onus is on the entire industry to ensure it treats all customers fairly.

It is worth remembering our 2007 Policy Statement that gives guidance on the responsibilities of providers and distributors for the fair treatment of customers. This has not lost any of its currency.

We are also aware of modified versions of PPI or alternative products being developed and offered to consumers that may well grow in volume. Some of these are insurance products, such as a short-term income protection product that is not linked directly to a specific loan or credit product, and some are within the product features of the credit or loan advanced, often known as a debt waiver.

This is an area where we are keen to ‘intervene early’ and engage with firms. We have started our analysis of the conduct risks they may present. You can expect further communications from us as we develop our thinking in this area.

Marketforce and Institute of Economic Affair's

Yeah right

[di30]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

http://www.compliancy-services.co.uk...r-ppi-says-fsa

The entire insurance industry must take responsibility for treating customers fairly, such as in the recent payment protection insurance scandal, it has been claimed.

More on the link above.

[leclerc]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

"I cannot respond to your enquiry. If you are a customer please contact your branch for information.

I will no longer be replying to your e-mails/phone calls."

This is how RBS Group respond when you ask them the obvious question(below is what I asked them and received that response).
"The JR is to challenge new rules coming in from December 2010 but my more specific question relates to firstly, why is there a stay when the rules which the JR is around is about rules coming in from 1st December 2010?"

[righty]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Like the 'branch' will know the answer to anything what a joke

[EXC]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

BBC News - Payment protection insurance heads complaints league


Payment protection insurance heads complaints league

Complaints about payment protection insurance (PPI) continue to dominate a list of financial disputes despite sales rules being tightened.

Some 45% of the workload of the Financial Ombudsman Service in the three months to October was made up of PPI cases, new figures show.

PPI is supposed to cover borrowers' loan repayments if they fall ill, die, or lose their jobs. Next were complaints about current accounts (11%) and credit cards (10%). Mortgages (4%), overdrafts and loans (3%), motor insurance (3%), and deposit and savings accounts (3%), followed on the list of most-complained about products to the Ombudsman.

Clampdown
PPI has become highly controversial after years of campaigning by consumer groups against the widespread mis-selling of the policies.

They accused banks and other lenders of foisting the insurance on millions of people, even if they could not make a claim under the terms of the policies, did not know what they were buying, or had been told improperly that buying the insurance was a requirement of being offered a loan in the first place.

Consequently, complaints have dominated the work of the Ombudsman for some time. It prompted action from regulators, ending with confirmation in October that banks will no longer be able to sell PPI policies when granting loans to customers.

Lenders will have to wait seven days before offering PPI to their customers, although a date has yet to be set for implementation of the new rules.

In the meantime, the City watchdog - the Financial Services Authority - has taken action against more than 20 firms for mis-selling PPI and has already halted the sale of the policies alongside unsecured personal loans where a one-off upfront premium was involved.

[di30]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

link removed - see next post.

Published 11 November 2010.


BBA-provides-update-on-its-legal-challenge-on-ppi.


More on the above link

(Looks like media news from a CMC).

[Amethyst]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

It is, for news from the bba look at the bba site BBA - The voice of banking and financial services - Media - Article - Payment Protection Insurance Complaints Handling

That release you have posted is from 13th October.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Some 45% of the workload of the Financial Ombudsman Service in the three months to October was made up of PPI cases, new figures show.

This was also on BBC Ceefax yesterday: 10 November 2010

[Chip Tuesday]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Morning all

Has anyone heard anything about the JR this week? It all seems to have gone a bit cold... I guess we're just waiting for the FSAs Acknowledgement of Service to become available (should be made available within the next week?)

CT