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

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

I have started a thread in Campaigns on this subject http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...026#post221026

If what the BBA say in this letter to the MOJ and if all of that can be put into place in a satisfactory manner this would cover a hell of a lot of our concerns on behalf of the consumers.

My main worry which I did not read was the upfront fes, but if they have safeguards in plce for the money then it would not be a big concern.

I also like the bit about the mis-leading in advertising and I hope this extends to CMC's web sites as well as their high powered sales pitches to customers on the phone.

It's anyone's guess really.

I do know that the MOJ have been conducting a wholesale review of the regulation of CMCs and the BBA have been lobbying them hard.

Attached is the BBA's response to a MOJ consultation earlier this year that mainly deals with Conduct of Authorised Person Rules for CMCs but they also took the opportunity to have a moan and groan about other issues the banking industry has with CMCs.

Incredibly amongst the list of demands, the BBA wants CMCs to ''be regulated in a similar way to the financial services industry – they should be subject to the same conduct principles, such as treating customers fairly, for example''.

And who was it at the very time this was written that was heading a legal challenge to the very legitimacy of enforcing Treating Customers Fairly conduct principles? Step forward the BBA.

[EXC]

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

An e-mail sent today by the BBA to members about the conference contains the following paragraph:

''A flurry of phone calls from speakers over the past few days tells us that an announcement is due on the day (there will be further details next week). Any firm having direct dealings with CMCs might wish to ensure that they have a colleague in the room.''

anybody know what this announcement means/is????

It's anyone's guess really.

I do know that the MOJ have been conducting a wholesale review of the regulation of CMCs and the BBA have been lobbying them hard.

Attached is the BBA's response to a MOJ consultation earlier this year that mainly deals with Conduct of Authorised Person Rules for CMCs but they also took the opportunity to have a moan and groan about other issues the banking industry has with CMCs.

Incredibly amongst the list of demands, the BBA wants CMCs to ''be regulated in a similar way to the financial services industry – they should be subject to the same conduct principles, such as treating customers fairly, for example''.

And who was it at the very time this was written that was heading a legal challenge to the very legitimacy of enforcing Treating Customers Fairly conduct principles? Step forward the BBA.

[seller 17]

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

An e-mail sent today by the BBA to members about the conference contains the following paragraph:

''A flurry of phone calls from speakers over the past few days tells us that an announcement is due on the day (there will be further details next week). Any firm having direct dealings with CMCs might wish to ensure that they have a colleague in the room.''[/quote]


Anybody know what this announcement means/is????

[andrew1]

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

What is generally acceptable as a refundable amount?

1)Refund of Premiums
2)Refund of Interest incurred on the account becasue of the PPI
3)Refund of SIMPLE interest applied to the account because of the PPI
Interest @ 8%

I sent my claim in for Contractual Interest - is that something people are going for or should one settle for Simple interest.

Opinions please?


A1

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

I would love to go to this conference but cannot afford that sort of money, so if I could be a fly on the wall I would.

I can tell you now the present system does not work IMHO and the MOJ have not dealt satisfactoriy with the rogue CMC's such as Cartel as well as many others and they allow them plenty of time to rake of the public before they suspend or cancel their authorisation giving them a free range to run a mock.

It is a whole day event
Dealing with CMCs

19/07/2011
A Critical Update on the Regulation of Claims Management Companies read more

Any idea where this is being held and times etc ?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
sorry just found it

Dealing with CMCs

19/07/2011 - Pinners Hall, 105-108 Old Broad Street, London, EC2N 1EX

Member Price: £270.00 including VAT
Non-Member Price: £390.00 including VAT

Register and pay online or complete the order form

[EXC]

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

From today's Times:




Lloyds bank accused of falsifying PPI contract


The Government is being urged to provide tougher protection for bank customers after Lloyds TSB was accused of falsifying a document that was central to a mis-selling claim.

Allen Wright, from Derby, says that the bank re-created a legal agreement linked to a credit card in 2000. The electronics engineer, 48, made the discovery after asking the bank for a copy of his credit agreement while collecting evidence that he was mis-sold payment protection insurance (PPI).

He was shocked by what he received. The document was riddled with errors, his name was misspelt, his employment status was wrong and it included his signature, although Mr Wright insists that he had never seen the document before, let alone signed it.

He says: “I think it is disgusting that they can falsify something. It looks so shabby, like the office junior filled it in.”
Under existing rules the bank has done nothing wrong — a revelation that will come as a shock to many bank customers, and which has prompted calls for a change in the law.

Oliver Morgans, a financial services expert at the government-funded Consumer Focus, says: “We would call on the Government to amend legislation to clear up any grey areas, ensure borrowers are not losing out and that lenders act fairly and responsibly. We would also advise consumers to always keep copies of credit agreements that they sign.”

Everyone who takes out a credit card, loan, overdraft or hire-purchase agreement signs a contract with the lender called a credit agreement.

You can ask the lender to send you a copy at any time and it has to comply within 12 days. If it fails to do so, the Consumer Credit Act says that the loan is not enforceable. In other words, the lender can’t force you to repay it or use the ultimate sanction of taking you to court if you refuse.

However, Mr Wright’s case has highlighted the fact that if a bank can’t find the original agreement, or has something to hide, it will simply make one up. And legally it can. A landmark court case established that a lender has only to provide a copy of the original agreement “which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself”.

Consumer groups say that there were sound reasons for the ruling, although it has given lenders an unfair advantage that some organisations may look to exploit.

Mr Morgans says: “We are concerned this could be used as a catch-all excuse for failing to keep accurate and up-to-date records, which is required by the Data Protection Act.”

Consumer Focus believes that the rules should be changed to force lenders to keep copies of original contracts and credit agreements, as part of a commitment to treat customers fairly.

The editor of Which? Money, James Daley, says: “The OFT [Office of Fair Trading] and courts say that banks have to provide only a ‘true copy’ of credit agreements, not necessarily the originals. While the reason for this was to stop the deluge of cases from claims-management companies saying that debts were unenforceable, it could also potentially put consumers at a disadvantage when making claims for things such as mis-sold PPI.”

This is borne out by Mr Wright’s experience, as he had requested his credit agreement to support his mis-selling claim. PPI was added to his Lloyds credit card against his will and, given that Mr Wright is self-employed, the insurance would probably never have paid out if he had made a claim.

However, the “Credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974” that he was sent implied that he was lying. It carried a ticked box that suggested he had said yes to “Asset Payment Protection”, another name for PPI. Mr Wright claims that on the original agreement he chose the “no” option.

It also included mistakes that were crossed out and then corrected; for example, describing him as employed although he was self-employed.

This fact was important for his mis-selling claim, since it would have been very difficult for him to claim on his PPI policy as a self-employed person. The insurance covers debt repayments if people are off work because of illness or unemployment. Claims made by self-employed people were routinely turned down because it is more difficult to ascertain when they can and can’t work.

Because Lloyds did not respond swiftly enough to Mr Wright’s claim he took his case to the Financial Ombudsman Service. This prompted an offer of redress earlier this month, although the bank still refuses to accept any liability.

Mr Wright believes that one of the most telling factors that prove he did not fill in the agreement is that his name was spelt incorrectly — Alla, not Allen — and then changed.

He says: “Nothing apart from the signature is in my handwriting. The signature must have been copied from the original agreement that I did sign.

“When I went back to the bank and asked for the original document I was told that I could obtain this from credit card services but this is where I went in the first place.”

Mr Morgans says: “Banks have responsibilities to their customers and it would be a real concern if a credit provider cannot produce the original signed contract on request. Re-creating a credit agreement rather than producing the original has clear potential for customers to be treated unfairly, even if accidentally. The contract may be different to the original, but with no evidence this would be very difficult for consumers to prove.”

The court case at the heart of the controversy is Carey v HSBC. It arose after there was a surge in claims from consumers arguing that their lender had breached section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 by failing to produce an exact copy of their credit agreements. They were encouraged by claims handlers who advertised aggressively with promises to “wipe out all debts”.

In the case, the High Court ruled that a credit agreement was still enforceable even when a bank was unable to provide a copy of the actual agreement, as a reconstructed copy was acceptable. Judge Waksman, QC, said that the purpose of his ruling was to give general guidance. The approach was then confirmed in official guidance from the OFT, which said that all the paperwork needed to tell you is:

• what your original agreement was, and if there were any changes made to it later;
• your name and address at the time that you first signed the agreement, although it doesn’t have to include your signature, or the date that you signed it;
• the statements about your rights that were in the agreement you signed;
• if it is a copy.

Lloyds Banking Group, which owns Lloyds TSB and whose slogan is “Our vision is to be the best bank for customers”, says: “In 2000, when Mr Wright made his credit card application, it was standard practice to fill the application forms out in branch. The branch colleague would have completed the form in Mr Wright’s presence following his instructions. The form will have then been passed to Mr Wright to confirm that it was correct before signing. The consumer credit agreement that Mr Wright has received is a scanned version of the original document.”

However, Mr Wright says that this is untrue, as he remembers filling in the agreement at home, and that this is not the document that he originally signed.

[mosten]

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

Just a heads-up for you CMC guys and perhaps those that are using one.

You may know that the are hosting a conference next Tuesday - 'Dealing With CMCs''.

The speakers at the conference include:

• Kevin Rousell, Head of Claims Management Regulation, Ministry of Justice
• Tony Boorman, Decisions Director & Principal Ombudsman, Financial Ombudsman Service
• Sophie Schuil-Brewer, Operations Support Manager, Financial Services Compensation Scheme
• David Williams, Claims and Underwriting Director, AXA Insurance
• Mayoor Patel, Head of Legal (Retail) - Unsecured Lending, Lloyds Banking Group
• Nicola Taylor, Policy Executive, Regulation Policy Team, Solicitors Regulation Authority
• Paul Scott, Director of Consulting, Huntswood
• Chris Busby, Partner, Eversheds
• Patricia Easterbrook, Director, Retail, British Bankers’ Association

Topics that will be covered in the conference will be:

• Review of CMC regulations – past, present, and future
• Lessons learnt from the experience of insurers when dealing with personal injury claims
• Understanding the regulatory environment of CMCS
• Clarification on the difference between CMCS and solictors
• Procedures and processes for dealing with CMCS

An e-mail sent today by the BBA to members about the conference contains the following paragraph:

''A flurry of phone calls from speakers over the past few days tells us that an announcement is due on the day (there will be further details next week). Any firm having direct dealings with CMCs might wish to ensure that they have a colleague in the room.''

Any idea where this is being held and times etc ?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
sorry just found it

Dealing with CMCs

19/07/2011 - Pinners Hall, 105-108 Old Broad Street, London, EC2N 1EX

Member Price: £270.00 including VAT
Non-Member Price: £390.00 including VAT

Register and pay online or complete the order form

[di30]

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

Hey Di! You're a Star! LOL
Good one, I'll use it. These emails to CEOs defo work.

lol no problem, hope this gets sorted quicker for you now, all crossed here.

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

Hey Di! You're a Star! LOL
Good one, I'll use it. These emails to CEOs defo work.

[di30]

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

Veeeeery frustrating! STILL nothing from First Direct. And that's not without chasing either! Anyone got an email addy for First Direct that's any good?

Came across the CEO one for you, hope this one helps.
mattcolebrook@firstdirect.com

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

Veeeeery frustrating! STILL nothing from First Direct. And that's not without chasing either! Anyone got an email addy for First Direct that's any good?

[EXC]

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

Just a heads-up for you CMC guys and perhaps those that are using one.

You may know that the BBA are hosting a conference next Tuesday - 'Dealing With CMCs''.

The speakers at the conference include:

• Kevin Rousell, Head of Claims Management Regulation, Ministry of Justice
• Tony Boorman, Decisions Director & Principal Ombudsman, Financial Ombudsman Service
• Sophie Schuil-Brewer, Operations Support Manager, Financial Services Compensation Scheme
• David Williams, Claims and Underwriting Director, AXA Insurance
• Mayoor Patel, Head of Legal (Retail) - Unsecured Lending, Lloyds Banking Group
• Nicola Taylor, Policy Executive, Regulation Policy Team, Solicitors Regulation Authority
• Paul Scott, Director of Consulting, Huntswood
• Chris Busby, Partner, Eversheds
• Patricia Easterbrook, Director, Retail, British Bankers’ Association

Topics that will be covered in the conference will be:

• Review of CMC regulations – past, present, and future
• Lessons learnt from the experience of insurers when dealing with personal injury claims
• Understanding the regulatory environment of CMCS
• Clarification on the difference between CMCS and solictors
• Procedures and processes for dealing with CMCS

An e-mail sent today by the BBA to members about the conference contains the following paragraph:

''A flurry of phone calls from speakers over the past few days tells us that an announcement is due on the day (there will be further details next week). Any firm having direct dealings with CMCs might wish to ensure that they have a colleague in the room.''

[JDEH]

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

[quote=EXC;219802]The Debenhams store card site says that ''Debenhams acts as a credit intermediary and only offers credit products for Santander Cards UK Limited''. Credit and Store Card Information from Debenhams Personal Finance Debenhams Personal Finance

The FSA defines an insurance intermediary activity here Glossary Definition

The Policy Statement isn't particularly clear as to the liability of an intermediary in PPI mis-selling:

The role of insurers and lenders in mis-selling PPI
Concerning provider/distributor responsibilities, where a firm is an authorised general
insurance intermediary, it is not bound, unless by contractual terms, to offer a particular
PPI policy provided by a lender. Indeed, in some cases, doing so may not be treating
customers fairly.37 Distributors are responsible for maintaining a compliant sales process,
and therefore should be responsible for redress, where a failing arose from the manner in
which the product was sold. If brokers feel that undue pressure was placed upon them by
lenders or insurers, they may separately have recourse to the courts if they so choose.

The issues in relation to agency law (e.g. whether the broker is acting (as agent) on the
part of the insured or the insurer (as principal)) are complex and fact specific, depending
on both the individual contractual arrangements between the parties and the specific
facts surrounding a particular sale. Again, brokers may separately have recourse to the
courts if they so choose.

Accordingly, we remain of the view that our Handbook text concerning PPI complaints and
redress is appropriately positioned in its emphasis on the seller of the policy, and we are not
making any changes to it in this regard.

Brokers have the right under DISP to forward PPI sales complaints to other firms
DISP 1.7.1R permits a firm to forward a complaint to another firm where it has reasonable
grounds to be satisfied that that other firm may be solely or jointly responsible for the
matter alleged in the complaint.

Insofar as a complaint is about the failings set out in the open letter and our Handbook text
we take the view that the ‘matter’ complained of is about the sale of the PPI, as opposed
to a complaint about the underlying product. In our opinion, such a complaint is properly
directed at the firm who sold the PPI and therefore firms are unlikely to have grounds to
forward that complaint on under DISP 1.7.1R.

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


Santander took over Debenhams store card business in Jan 2009 when they bought GE Capital Bank.

In 2007 the FSA fined GE Capital Bank £610k for failings in PPI sales - largely Debenhams store card PPI. FSA fines GE Capital Bank

So it may be that the rule-of-thumb that mis-sales of PPI are the liability of the seller and not the insurer doesn't apply to a sole intermediary of store cards PPI.

If I were you I'd make a quick call to the FOS helpline who should be able to give you a definitive answer 0800 023 4567.


I now have had a written reply from the FOS as follows:

Good Afternoon,
I am in receipt of a letter from yourself dated 25 August 2010. It has been passed to me today for response. Please accept my apologies for the delay. On reflection I think your enquiry is probably not best directed to us, but I am happy to provide a response in light of the time that has elapsed.
I thought I would tackle your questions as they were presented:

• 1. Why is it that Santander who is a bank, is not regulated by the FOS?

The Financial Ombudsman Service is not a regulator. However, Santander Cards Limited are regulated by the Office of Fair Trading.

• 2. Why is Santander Cards allowed to reject all claims for mis-sold PPI regardless of their obvious merit?

You may decide to raise this issue with the above mentioned regulator.

• 3. Is my assumption regarding the FLA above correct in that they appear to have no power to review and/or overrule Santander's decision?

As I am sure you can appreciate, it would not be right for our service to pass comment about the effectiveness of an alternative scheme.
4. What redress do my clients have where they are unsatisfied both with Santander and FLA's response and where there is an obvious injustice?
Your clients would have the option of presenting their case in front of a court for consideration.
Where do you suggest I go from here?
JDEH

[leclerc]

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

March through August 2012, is more realistic!

I'm merely saying what I have been told by people who work on PPI complaints from the banks have said. I agree with you with regards to the realistic timescale for complaints because I don't think that it is realistic to expect that to happen so early.

[Angry Cat]

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

Turning back to the credit today article above.

The debt buyers pay between 7.5% - 10% for toxic debts.
But want 100% payment re: mis-sold PPI.

What about the interest that has been added by DCA's;
charging orders;
incorrect data on consumers credit files etc.

And, if the debts have been legally assigned under absolute assignments, the 'put back' clauses in same may have expired?

It will be interesting to hear what the OFT's view will be.