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

[StrayPup]

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

MBNA Claim Status

Having had a result on the Virgin Card claim, I was awaiting same on the MBNA. However, 3 or 4 weeks ago I got a rejection (final), showing that I had apparently ticked the PPI box on the application form and that they felt that I had not shown that I had any other provision for making the payments in place in case of illness, etc.

I had already "warmed up" the FOS by phone some weeks before during the JR (and got a ref number from them), so I refered it to them pronto with all the paperwork.

I felt a bit relaxed about it for a few reasons and resigned myself to a long haul with the FOS, but some curious events happened:

FOS got my formal complaint and said they would get back to me within a month - surprising so quick.

Got a letter last week from MBNA (no FOS leaflet in it this time) with a new reference number saying they are looking into the matter - strange since I had received a "final" letter from them before! And then another letter from them today apologising for the delay and promising to reply by 9/9. What is going on?

I wasn't too concerned about the situation because I believe MBNA did not even look at the (FOS) questionnaire that I had to send them recently. In it I reminded them that (I did not know at the time that this ppi box was apparently ticked) as a 50% owner/deirector of my company that it was dubious whether I could have claimed on the PPI in any case, and that I would be paid by the company in any case if I was sick. And moreover that even if I had ticked the box it stated that PPI was "strongly recommended" which I believe counts as an "advised" sale according to the FOS [FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Case study .[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']The thought occurred to me, which prompted this current post was, given that MBNA knew that I had already have a PPI with another card of their's, doesn't that count has evidence that any other PPI sale would be unwarranted?!![/FONT]

[dogtired]

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




Got this today never paid them a bean so how can they "cease" collection activity?

Written to BOS again and e-mailed the CEO!!
My did not know I had it in me!:tinysmile_hmm_t2:
They want eight weeks to pay me bac the ppi yet stll "sell" it!!
DTxx

[EXC]

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

I am not taking any sides in this issue that apparently has roots deeper than I first realised. Either way its unfortunate. But I stand by my opinion that certain comments arent appropriate as "passing remarks", and if the underlying issue is of real importance and warrants users being made aware, perhaps a thread dedicated to the underlying issue would be the best.

Let's get one thing straight shall we?

One of the primary functions of this or any other consumer forum is to strive to protect consumers from potential detriment from organisations - whoever they may be.

If it is demonstrable that an organisation poses a risk to consumers - which includes those giving clearly and unambiguously inaccurate legal advice that has a genuine potential to not only scupper a claimant’s case but result in being liable for substantial costs - then I would consider it an abdication of my responsibility as a fellow forum member not to draw attention to it.

And I shall do this in a location of my choosing and in a manner as I see fit.

Is that clear enough for you?

[MrZ]

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

And while you're at it you could do worse than tell Marc Gander, contrary to what he advised on the BBC website.....

''This is where you will learn the ropes and it is free.
Do not pay much attention to the story that you can only claim for the previous six years.
You are probably claiming for the return of money paid under a mistake.
For money paid by mistake, you usually have six years from the date you became aware of the mistake. So make your claim as far back as you want.''

BBC News - PPI: How to reclaim your premiums


.....is in fact garbage....

''Therefore, Mr Holyoak said that he should be allowed to take advantage of the extended limitation periods for (a) negligence claims afforded by section 14 (A) of the 1980 Act (3 years from the date when the claimant knew or ought to have known material facts about the loss suffered) or (b) claims in respect of relief from the consequences of mistake under section 32 of the 1980 Act (the limitation period not beginning to run until the claimant discovered the mistake).''


''District Judge Loomba, sitting in Sunderland County Court, considered Lloyds’ submission that section 14A of the 1980 Act only applied to actions founded on negligence and did not apply so as to save the misrepresentation claim. He agreed and held that Mr Holyoak’s claims arising under in relation to the 2004 agreement and the policy were “statute barred”. ''



Time called on PPI mis-selling - Lexology


......and after week when you'll see that his BBC advice remains unaltered, come back here and try to convince us he's not knowingly giving misleading advice.

I certainly dont want to mediate between what apparently is a long standing issue here.

But I must comment that the FOS does take the position that the 6 year limit should not be used as a reason for a lender to flatly refuse to uphold a complaint for mis-sold PPI. We all know that the FOS does not adjudicate the law. The FOS position has no bearing on how a court will apply the law.

So in truth, a claim can be made via the FOS even if beyond the 6 year limit. Making that same claim in court however may be a different matter.

To say that the 6 year limit does not apply to all claims whether made to the FOS or through the courts is not true. Neither is it true to say it does.

I am not taking any sides in this issue that apparently has roots deeper than I first realised. Either way its unfortunate. But I stand by my opinion that certain comments arent appropriate as "passing remarks", and if the underlying issue is of real importance and warrants users being made aware, perhaps a thread dedicated to the underlying issue would be the best.

[MrZ]

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

Mr Z

I agree with you, we are all on the same side, fighting the rip off lenders and getting redress for consumers.

We believe in sharing information for the benefit of all consumers, that's how we can fight back properly.



So, I'm going to set you a little challenge!

You'll notice that EXC posted a link above to your thread on CAG. That's great because that means readers on all fora can access that thread and all others.

The challenge is: Go over to CAG and post a link to something really useful on Legal Beagles, something that could really help CAG members.

Come back and tell me how that went.

I am aware that CAG doesn't allow links to this forum. It is unfortunate, because as you and I agree, we are all on the same side.

[EXC]

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

And while you're at it you could do worse than tell Marc Gander, contrary to what he advised on the BBC website.....

''This is where you will learn the ropes and it is free.
Do not pay much attention to the story that you can only claim for the previous six years.
You are probably claiming for the return of money paid under a mistake.
For money paid by mistake, you usually have six years from the date you became aware of the mistake. So make your claim as far back as you want.''

BBC News - PPI: How to reclaim your premiums


.....is in fact garbage....

''Therefore, Mr Holyoak said that he should be allowed to take advantage of the extended limitation periods for (a) negligence claims afforded by section 14 (A) of the 1980 Act (3 years from the date when the claimant knew or ought to have known material facts about the loss suffered) or (b) claims in respect of relief from the consequences of mistake under section 32 of the 1980 Act (the limitation period not beginning to run until the claimant discovered the mistake).''


''District Judge Loomba, sitting in Sunderland County Court, considered Lloyds’ submission that section 14A of the 1980 Act only applied to actions founded on negligence and did not apply so as to save the misrepresentation claim. He agreed and held that Mr Holyoak’s claims arising under in relation to the 2004 agreement and the policy were “statute barred”. ''



Time called on PPI mis-selling - Lexology


......and after a week when you'll see that his BBC advice remains unaltered, come back here and try to convince us he's not knowingly giving misleading advice.

[Celestine]

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

Mr Z

I agree with you, we are all on the same side, fighting the rip off lenders and getting redress for consumers.

We believe in sharing information for the benefit of all consumers, that's how we can fight back properly.



So, I'm going to set you a little challenge!

You'll notice that EXC posted a link above to your thread on CAG. That's great because that means readers on all fora can access that thread and all others.

The challenge is: Go over to CAG and post a link to something really useful on Legal Beagles, something that could really help CAG members.

Come back and tell me how that went.

[MrZ]

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

I refer to my earlier post. And in summary, any advice or opinion given should be taken with a grain of salt. One should not and cannot take anything found on a forum or the internet as fact or a blanket application.

I am very much aware of the need to confirm independently any advice or opinion, as is demonstrated in the post from CAG you kindly presented here. Its obvious that I am not relying solely on a lay person's opinion, and have sought advice from qualified experts.

Having said that, it is an unfortunate reality that many forum users will take information out of context and run with it, under the misguided belief that law or legality is simple and straight forward.

That doesn't change the fact that you obviously have a bone of contention with at least one other consumer advice forum. I'm sure you probably have very good reason for this. However your reasons are not clear, and even if they were, I don't agree that its appropriate to display cooments of that nature in a forum without giving the reader the privilege of knowing the "full story". BTW, I am not asking that you provide the full story, because I don't want, or need to know.

I don't have unswerving faith in CAG or LB. I frequent both sites in order to find information and advice as pertains to my individual situation. I am smart enough and wise enough to weed through opinion and statements of fact.

Not everyone will get it right all the time or every time. A mistake with good intentions is still a mistake, but that can not be seen to be the same as wilful or intentional misleading.

My own personal experience is that I am able to find more robust and informed opinions on CAG than any other site, including this one. That does not mean that every opinion I find should be relied on as fact.

I think its important to remember why people visit the fora. That reason is that the average user doesn't know what their rights are, or what legal options are available to them in given circumstance.

There will be times when an answer is incorrect. If you or I, or anyone else, know an answer to be incorrect or mistaken, we should aim to clarify the answer. I don't see the benefit of making general statement against another person or forum, when such a statement is not support by facts or at least the right context.

Again, I am not saying there may not be reasons for the statements, but those reasons are not evident in the statement themselves. Perhaps a thread dedicated to the reasons for the statements would be beneficial, or perhaps not.

Either way, to the casual reader, or to the forum user who doesn't know your underlying reasons, it appears to be a blanket statement just as misleading as the post you point to.

I apologise for the length of the reply, and realise this thread is not the ideal place for such a discussion, but humbly ask you consider the effect that such statements can have on those who read it. Especially those who don't have the benefit of the underlying story...whatever that story might be. We are all on the same team afterall, or least we should be.

[EXC]

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

Fair enough.

Okey doke.

One particular site team member's stock answer to whether time barring applies to PPI claims, regardless of whether it's made in court or to the FOS, is that ''there is no time limit on PPI reclaims.''

PPI Newbie

No doubt due to your unswerving faith in CAG you'd assume that to be good advice and in no way misleading.

Or would you?



Re: Welcome Finance PPI and Mr Z


A Sunderland county court case Paul Holyoak v Lloyds TSB Bank plc was a success for the lender. The judge ruled that the claim was time barred and that the claimant could not rely on s32 of the Limitations Act.

Same thing in Carson & Hazell v Black Horse Limited... the claim was time barred

Now I am beginning to understand why the barrister said that the claim is time barred. I think this needs serious attention as it could cost me my entire claim. Does anyone know if the 12 year limit for secured loans/mortgages would apply to these PPI claims?

Welcome Finance PPI and Mr Z - Page 29

[MrZ]

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

If we could add 'irresponsible' to specific areas of mis-information, I'd be happy to oblige.

Fair enough.

[EXC]

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

I certainly don't wish to instigate a debate where none is necessary, but I do think that unless one can point to specific areas of mis-information or intentionally misleading advice, its probably best to refrain from posting those opinions in a public forum... where a large percentage of readers may not fully appreciate the reasons one has for holding those opinions.

If we could add 'irresponsible' to specific areas of mis-information, I'd be happy to oblige.

[MrZ]

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

The last 3 PPI cases since I know about since the JR have been lost. Here's 2 where adverse costs were awarded Resolving PPI complaints – pay them all, defend in Court or request a FOS hearing? | Regulatory Law

As for slagging off other sites, I have an unchallengable right to my opinion - not a concept embraced by GAG.

And I do think it's genuinely helpful to draw attention to misleading and demonstrably inaccurate advice. Clearly you don't.

I am all for pointing out errors in information given as fact. Advice on the other hand can not be accurate or inaccurate. It is advice. It is ultimately up to the individual to accept or reject it.

As for the link you posted, its quite obvious the 2 cases were on "sketchy" ground from the beginning. In both cases, it was a matter of the evidence submitted. I don't think anyone, whether at CAG or here, would knowingly advise someone to start a court claim when the evidence doesn't support a mis-sale.


Moreover, I have to ask what is the true intent of your comments? Is it a personal vendetta against another site, a suggestion that consumers (who have valid claims of mis-selling) should not be seeking fair and just resolution, or something else that isn't quite clear in your comment?

I certainly don't wish to instigate a debate where none is necessary, but I do think that unless one can point to specific areas of mis-information or intentionally misleading advice, its probably best to refrain from posting those opinions in a public forum... where a large percentage of readers may not fully appreciate the reasons one has for holding those opinions.

I also agree you are fully entitled to your opinion, but I do have to question the motive behind, what appears on face value, to be leaning toward retaliation.

I will be the first to say, that unless one is fully prepared for the long battle and the risk of adverse costs, that court action shouldn't even be considered. For many however, given the greedy underhanded tactics of the lenders, and their refusal to set right the consequences of their wrong doing, legal action will be the only option.

[EXC]

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

Wollerton v Blackhorse
Yates v Nemo
Thorius v MBNA

I am sure there are many others that have either settled or were decided in the county court and have been unreported.

If the banks were winning the majority of claims, their PR guru's would be having a field day. The lenders keep relying on the same old arguments and these arguments are being defeated.

Regarding slagging off other sites/fora I am also remembering your comment in post 4189

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...postcount=4189

All I am saying is these sort of comments are not helpful to anyone.

The last 3 PPI cases since I know about since the JR have been lost. Here's 2 where adverse costs were awarded Resolving PPI complaints – pay them all, defend in Court or request a FOS hearing? | Regulatory Law

As for slagging off other sites, I have an unchallengable right to my opinion - not a concept embraced by GAG.

And I do think it's genuinely helpful to draw attention to misleading and demonstrably inaccurate advice. Clearly you don't.

[MrZ]

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

Wollerton v Blackhorse
Yates v Nemo
Thorius v MBNA

I am sure there are many others that have either settled or were decided in the county court and have been unreported.

If the banks were winning the majority of claims, their PR guru's would be having a field day. The lenders keep relying on the same old arguments and these arguments are being defeated.

Regarding slagging off other sites/fora I am also remembering your comment in post 4189

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...postcount=4189

All I am saying is these sort of comments are not helpful to anyone.

[EXC]

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

Also, I dont think it helps to slag off other sites/fora that are offering help and advice. I suspect there are far more PPI success than there are losses at any rate.

I didn't slag anyone off. I said it was a mistake to follow CAG's advice that you should pursue the lender for a mis-selling claim regardless of the fact that the liability falls squarely on the shoulders of the seller ie the broker - where one is involved, not just in law but also in the eyes of the FSA & FOS.

You may suspect that there are more PPI cases won in court than lost - perhaps you could point me in the direction of some.