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

[EXC]

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

I don't think that the implementation or not of the new requirements by lenders should have any effect on current unresolved complaints. The banks are stalling complaints on the basis of a potential outcome of the Judicial Review as opposed to the new requirements in themselves.

Also consumer litigation should not be effected by either the JR or, presumably, the new requirements http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/sto...ion=getsession

[EXC]

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

......the FSA told Money Mail: ''Lenders will not be able to put postbags of complaints to one side. We will apply enforcement action if firms fail to comply.''

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/credit-...moretopstories'

[Chip Tuesday]

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

Do you think we'll get anything out of the FSA today if there is the intended general lack of complaince with PS10/12?

CT

[EXC]

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

Do you think we'll get anything out of the FSA today if there is the intended general lack of complaince with PS10/12?

CT

I wouldn't have thought so as they would probably need to apply various investigative procedures to get cast iron evidence of non compliance before announcing anything.

[di30]

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

Is the BBA set to take on bully tactics over PPI?


http://www.money-marketuk.com/index....ion&Itemid=317


Just when you thought banks couldn’t sink any lower, they manage to find a new ocean trench to sliver into.

The British Bankers’ Association (or should that be the Banking Bullying Association?) is fighting attempts by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to ensure fair payouts for victims of mis-sold payment protection insurance


More on the link.......

[Chip Tuesday]

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

The author of that article didn't really need to bother making the title into a question! Of course they're being bullys, that's what they do!!

CT

[SoapyBubbles]

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

Hi intelligent people.

Please excuse me if my question is in the wrong forum or has been asked before.

I am novice LoL!

Quite simply, what constitutes why a bank can put a complaint on hold because of the judicial review?

What are the reasons a bank can state for a complaint to be affected by the judicial review?

Surely they can't just say that a complaint is affected by the judicial review without giving specific reasoning?

I have had letters and phone calls with FirstPlus/Barclays regarding why my complaint is on hold and they couldn't give me a specific reason. All they said was 'it was because the loan was took out in 2007 and therefore it was affected by the judicial review'.

Admin and regular members, I will start my own thread as soon as possible. Promise.

Thanks for reading.

[Chip Tuesday]

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

Hi intelligent people.

Please excuse me if my question is in the wrong forum or has been asked before.

I am novice LoL!

Quite simply, what constitutes why a bank can put a complaint on hold because of the judicial review?

What are the reasons a bank can state for a complaint to be affected by the judicial review?

Surely they can't just say that a complaint is affected by the judicial review without giving specific reasoning?

I have had letters and phone calls with FirstPlus/Barclays regarding why my complaint is on hold and they couldn't give me a specific reason. All they said was 'it was because the loan was took out in 2007 and therefore it was affected by the judicial review'.

Admin and regular members, I will start my own thread as soon as possible. Promise.

Thanks for reading.

Ahhh, very good questions Soapy!

what the general consensus seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) is that claims pre-dating 2005 (the start of FSA regulation) may be effected. HOWEVER there is no official line on this coming from the banks, and the FSA is standing by the fact that they think Banks should comply with the new rules unless an adverse ruling is made during the JR hearing. To cloud the waters even more the BBA have said that their members (near enough every big bank going) won't comply with the new rules, and that "some complaints may be affected by the judicial review" but they have failed to elaborate on what those complaints might look like - very useful!

basically we're guessing!

CT

[SoapyBubbles]

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

Afternoon Chip Tuesday,

hope your well?

So what about PPI taken post 2005? Is the FSA saying these are not affected by the judicial review?

I am totally lost. Banks are evil, deceitful, smarmy and quite frankly getting way too big for their boots.

[pompeyfaith]

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

These are the first questions the judge should be asking and if there answers are not warrented they be penalised in some way inc having all claims reinstated
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
claims before 2005 are hard to prove anyway as you will not have the backing of the FOS and have to use where possible the GISC instead

[EXC]

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

In my view it defies logic to hold any PPI complaint in anticipation of what complaints criteria may exist at some point in the future. There is no reason why a complaint shouldn't be dealt with under the existing criteria and in the prescribed time limits. In the absence of any complaints handling waiver and regardless of what the FSA may say, providers obligations remain. The bank charges waiver was conditional on there being stays to County Court litigation pending the test case ie no court stays, no waiver.

In any case it is not at all certain that there will even be a Judicial Review as the justification for the BBA to have one doesn't get decided until the hearing on 25 January.

So in short the banks are holding claims by virtue of the mere possibility of legal action, the outcome of which cannot have effect on currently held complaints.

[SoapyBubbles]

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

These are the first questions the judge should be asking and if there answers are not warrented they be penalised in some way inc having all claims reinstated

Afternoon pompeyfaith,

hope your well?

So in the meantime can banks basically fob off Joe Public for a few months yet with the line 'your complaint is on hold as it is affected by the judicial review'? Nothing more needed.

So basically banks can make and bend the rules to their advantage without having to answer to anyone (well at the moment anyway)?

Surely when the banks used the line 'affected by the judicial review' the first thing that should of been asked by ever who regulates the banks is why and how?

If I was given a valid and justified reason(s) relating to why my complaint is on hold I would indeed keep my mouth shut. Surely the banks would love nothing more than to shut the complainers up with a reason with substance to why complaints are on hold.

I'm sorry but 'your complaint is on hold because of the judicial review' just isn't good enough and someone somewhere should be hammering the banks for a justified reason.

I really do hate banks!

Sorry for ranting.

[EXC]

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

what the general consensus seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) is that claims pre-dating 2005 (the start of FSA regulation) may be effected.
CT

They may be effected but only for complaints made from today - when the new criteria applies to complaints to policies sold prior to 2005.

The irony is that if the FSA policy statement in respect of pre 2005 is quashed by the Judicial Review nothing will change. If the JR upholds the policy statement then the criteria by which these complaints are considered increases in favour of the complainant and so by holding complaints until a decision is reached the banks at best gain nothing and at worst lose out by holding a complaint until such time when they have to apply more stringent criteria to them.

[SoapyBubbles]

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

Just received an e-mail from FirstPlus/Barclays to why my complaint is on hold. I told them 'because of the judicial review' is not a valid response.

So this is what I received

'The standards against which your complaint should be assessed, namely the FSA policy statement on PPI complaints and guidance published by the FOS are the subject of legal proceedings between the BBA, the FSA and the FOS.

In August 2010, the FSA published new requirements concerning the way in which the industry should handle customer complaints about the sale of PPI policies. The BBA believes that these requirements go beyond the rules and regulatory requirements in force at the time of the sales. Accordingly, the BBA has sought clarification from the Court on that and on a related point concerning complaint handling by the FOS.'

I'm guessing this a valid (generic) reason to why my complaint is on hold then? Yes? No?

Loan/PPI was took out in 2007 and the PPI was first complained about at the end of August 2010. Now getting ready to pass it on to the FOS.

[Chip Tuesday]

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

Presumable you submitted your complaint before this morning?!

If so then they don't have a foot to stand on. The policy statement is only effective from today, and even then Barclays are a member of the BBA who won't be enforcing the PS rules.

To me it sounds as though the banks are trying to have their cake and eat it. They're relying on the policy statement in one respect and disregard it in another.

what do they think they're doing?!

CT