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......

If you enter the DISP app numbers (ie 3.7.7) into the Policy Statement search function it goes into more detail on their application.

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

Thanks, EXC - yes, this gives a number of 'worked examples' - and even a worked spreadsheet page.

[dogtired]

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

Now had an "offer" letter from BOS that would "pay off" existing balance with a tiny bit to spare, however this was "sold" to Cabot who have never been able to supply valid CCA and from whom I got a letter last week saying they now considered it "irresolvable" ?! What happens now?:beagle:
xxDT

[EXC]

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

Nice one Bill.

If you enter the DISP app numbers (ie 3.7.7) into the Policy Statement search function it goes into more detail on their application.

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

[Bill-K]

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

...I've have read other posts OTR today as well about part offers, what's all that about?

Disp/App/3.7 from the FOS PPI Handbook covers "Alternative Redress" - and I suspect that this will be increasingly used or abused by lenders as a way of reducing the inevitable payouts. Basically, as I read it, IF the 'firm' (the lender) decides to PRESUME that the 'complainant' (the borrower) WOULD have taken out PPI from an alternative provider, then the FOS supports a reduced payout, which is based on the difference between what was charged for the original mis-sold PPI, and what the FOS has decided (in 3.7.13) WOULD have been charged by a cheaper PPI provider.

Quite possibly, an innocent answer to the FOS questionnaire may be all that is required to implement this, so I think we should be VERY careful with our answers to it.

I'm not sure if this is actually what is being offered in SKV123's case, but it seems based on a similar principle.

FSA Handbook - Full Handbook

Alternative approach to redress: single premium policies

DISP App 3.7.7
01/12/2010
Where the only breach or failing was within DISP App 3.6.2 E (9) and/or DISP App 3.6.2 E (12), and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the firm may presume that instead of buying the single premium payment protection contract he bought, the complainant would have bought a regular premium payment protection contract.
DISP App 3.7.8
01/12/2010
If a firm chooses to make this presumption, then it should do so fairly and for all relevant complainants in a relevant category of sale. It should not, for example, only use the approach for those complainants it views as being a lower underwriting risk or those complainants who have cancelled their policies.
DISP App 3.7.9
01/12/2010
Where the firm presumes that the complainant would have purchased a regular premium payment protection contract, the firm should offer redress that puts the complainant in the position he would have been if he had bought an alternative regular premium payment protection contract.
DISP App 3.7.10
01/12/2010
The firm should pay to the complainant a sum equal to the amount in DISP App 3.7.3 E less the amount the complainant would have paid for the alternative regular premium payment protection contract.
DISP App 3.7.11
01/12/2010
The firm should consider whether it is appropriate to deduct the value of any paid claims from the redress.
DISP App 3.7.12
01/12/2010
Additionally, where a single premium was added to a loan, DISP App 3.7.4 E applies except that in respect of DISP App 3.7.4 E (1)(a) the cancellation value should only be used if the complainant expressly wishes to cancel the policy.
DISP App 3.7.13
01/12/2010
The firm should, for the purposes of redressing the complaint, use the value of £9 per £100 of benefits payable as the monthly price of the alternative regular premium payment protection contract. For example, if the monthly repayment amount in relation to the loan only is to be £200, the price of the alternative regular premium payment protection contract will be £18.
DISP App 3.7.14
01/12/2010
Where the firm presumes that the complainant would have purchased a regular premium payment protection contract and if the complainant expressly wishes it, the existing cover should continue until the end of the existing policy term. The complainant should pay the price of the alternative regular premium payment protection contract (at DISP App 3.7.13 E) and should be able to cancel at any time. This pricing does not apply where DISP App 3.7.4 E (1)(b) applies.
DISP App 3.7.15
06/04/2011
So that the complainant can make the decision on the continuation of cover from an informed position, the firm should:
(1) offer to provide details of the existing payment protection contract;

(2) inform the complainant that he may be able to find similar cover more cheaply from another provider in the event that he chooses to cancel the policy and take an alternative but remind the complainant that if his circumstances (for example, his health or employment prospects) have changed since the original sale, he may not be eligible for cover under any new policy he buys;

(3) make the complainant aware of the changes to the cancellation arrangements if cover continues;

(4) explain how the future premium will be collected and the cost of the future cover; and

(5) refer the complainant to 1, org.uk1 as a source of information about a range of alternative payment protection contracts.

May not be relevant here, but it seemed worth a mention.

[MBD23]

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?

[di30]

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

Had a BH rejection today for a couple who have both been disabled and on benefits rather than employed since pre-2000. Rejection was on a loan taken in 2005.

No doubt they are rejecting simply to get rid.

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%"

This makes me feel so damn flipping mad! This again is not on, a genuine complaint rejected! What on earth is going on?

Personally I would write back and ask them to reconsider even if you did receive a final decision, tell them you don't feel the complaint have even been looked into as these are genuine reasons to complain.
I would also be inclined to mention you will be considering contacting the FSA as well, because of the way they are dealing with these complaints!
Ask them to write back within 14 days to let you know and confirm if you hear nothing you will be contacting the FSA for them rejecting and not investigating the complaint.

Did they also mention the FOS?

Well done on your success as well.
I've have read other posts OTR today as well about part offers, what's all that about?

[skv123]

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

I may get in touch with the FSA actually!

Had a BH rejection today for a couple who have both been disabled and on benefits rather than employed since pre-2000. Rejection was on a loan taken in 2005.

No doubt they are rejecting simply to get rid.

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%"

[EXC]

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

From Santander's half year results published this morning:

''Despite this, there can be no assurance that the Company’s estimates for potential [PPI] liability are correct, and the reserves taken as a result might prove inadequate.

The FSA may identify future industry-wide misselling or other issues that could affect the Group. This may lead from time to time to: (i) significant direct costs or liabilities (including in relation to misselling); and (ii) changes in the practices of such businesses which benefit customers at a cost to shareholders.''

Whatever could they mean?

[di30]

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

I may get in touch with the FSA actually!

[di30]

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

lots of black horse rejection letters being sent out in last week.. might be we cant deal with them, just reject them now so we meet deadline and then go back to them after wards in couple of weeks..

Sorry not posted on this one for a while.

Yes I noticed there have been lots of rejections in regards of BH here and there.
And was thinking the same "just reject them" to get the cases off their backs by the deadline and they can't keep up.

Hopefully the FSA will or they should pick up on this one surely, it's not right, there are also a lot of genuine cases out there being rejected, just not on!

[Paul210]

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

anyone else like to hazard a guess at what % of the claims will have been dealt with by Aug 31st held up by JR?
think all the cmc people are too busy opening the post than to visit the forum

I'd guess approx 90% dealt with by month end, of course not all of these will have had redress figures by then but most should have had decision as to whther upholding or not.

[mosten]

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

lots of black horse rejection letters being sent out in last week.. might be we cant deal with them, just reject them now so we meet deadline and then go back to them after wards in couple of weeks..

[EXC]

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

anyone else like to hazard a guess at what % of the claims will have been dealt with by Aug 31st held up by JR?

Tough to say but we should know by Wednesday.

The problem is that the deadline is for complaints to be 'responded' to and not necessarily resolved. And if Barclays estimates are anything to go by they'll be more complaints in the second half of this year than the first - which will have to be responded to in a 12 week time frame as opposed to 16.

[MBD23]

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

anyone else like to hazard a guess at what % of the claims will have been dealt with by Aug 31st held up by JR?
think all the cmc people are too busy opening the post than to visit the forum

[EXC]

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

I could be way out but wasn't the "no quibble approach" confirmed around 13th June?

Yes but it applied from 9 May when they resumed processing the backlog of complaints:

On 9 May 2011, Barclays announced that it would not be participating in any application for permission to appeal against the High Court Judgment and that Barclays agreed with the FSA that it will process all backlog and any new complaints from customers about PPI policies they hold. Barclays also announced that as a gesture of goodwill, it would pay out compensation to customers who had PPI complaints put on hold during the Judicial Review.

Barclays.com - UK complaints data