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......

Wish we could believe everything that is written like this could be true.

The CMC's have been having a field days now for years, complaints a plenty and yet the MOJ do absolutely NOTHING in 99% of cases. When they have taken drastic action in most cases it has invariably been far to late as with companies like Cartel.

Complaints to the MOJ were cold calling, taking upfront fees and telling folk they could get back £1000's, telling folk they have been told by the MOJ to call them, One CMC told us that the firm of solicitors they were using turned out just to be another CMC like themselves and in fact did NOT employ any solicitors. This complaint I felt was wuite a serious one and yet the MOJ again did nothing and this continued.

Now ask yourself why does the MOJ not take these complaints too seriosly?

They receive a fee when they give there authorisation.

They also receive from CMC's in addition a percentage of T/O (cant remember the figure) so really because of this they are not truly independant to be able to properly adjudicate them as it is a money spinning exercise for a government department.

Many of these CMC's break every rule in the book and get away with it and people are so gullable they fall for there way with words and with £££££ signs mention they often part with large sums of money and rarely do these companies ever get them a payout.

So who is going to sort out the MOJ and the CMC's as I would like to know and are all of theses nusance callers registered with the MOJ?

From today's Times.


Barrage of cold calls leads to demand for ban

Outcry after claims handlers persist in harassing people even after they have taken steps to stop nuisance calls

A ban on cold calling by claims handlers is being demanded after evidence emerged that companies are routinely flouting the existing safeguards and bombarding people with nuisance phone calls and texts.
Citizens Advice, which earlier this year called for cold calls by credit or debt management firms to be outlawed, said this week that a ban should be extended to claims management companies that call or text out of the blue.

The announcement follows a Times Money investigation that found that claims companies are harassing people after they have asked them to stop, breaching legal restrictions, and an industry whistleblower revealed the hard-sell tactics used to target potential customers.

Peter Tutton, a policy officer at Citizens Advice, says: “We believe a ban on cold calling is the only way to tackle this problem effectively. The Telephone Preference Service [TPS] is helpful, but any system where you have to actively opt in to protect yourself from unwanted calls is not going to be enough. Our evidence demonstrates beyond doubt that cold calling can be a gateway for both bad practice and fraud.”

The Government is already under pressure to get tough on claims firms that hound people about payment protection insurance (PPI), personal injury claims and mortgage mis-selling. Jack Straw, the MP for Blackburn and former Justice Secretary, called for “much tighter legislation of claims companies” last week after publishing a report into the backhanders paid to insurers by claims firms for customers’ personal details.

Shortcomings in the existing safeguards mean that people can feel powerless to stop cold calls, even if their phone numbers are supposed to be protected.

A subscriber to the TPS should be shielded from cold calls after he or she has been on its register for 28 days. However, consumers who have signed up to the service say that the phone calls don’t stop, and claims handlers are often the culprits.
Christina Kebbell, a home-school support worker from Kent, found that signing up to the TPS did not stop calls from Chase Alexander Associates, a claims handler based in Manchester.

She says: “When I answered the phone I was asked for by name. When I confirmed who I was the caller said, ‘We have been given your details by the Financial Services Authority, who have asked us to call you regarding your mortgage’. When I said that the FSA would not have details of my mortgage and certainly wouldn’t pass them on, as it would be a breach of the Data Protection Act, the caller played dumb and ended the call. Later that afternoon I received a call from a different person from the same company who launched into the same spiel.”

Seb Alexanderson, the managing director of Chase Alexander Associates, claims that the company would never have mentioned the FSA as a source of data, although Mrs Kebbell is adamant that it did. He adds: “All our data is provided on the proviso that it is checked against TPS and the client has ‘opted in’ for a phone call.”

The FSA would like to stress that it does not have individuals’ mortgage details and that if it did it would not pass them on to a claims handler.

Sometimes pointing out that you have signed up to the TPS or a simple request to not phone again is enough to make the calls stop. However, excuses are often offered as to why the TPS does not apply by employees of companies under intense pressure to turn calls into sales, according to a source who until recently worked for Consumer Money Matters, a claims handler based in Leicester.

The source says: “We had to follow a script ... and when people said that they were on the TPS we said they had opted in for a call so the TPS doesn’t apply.”

Further protection is supposed to be provided by the conduct rules of the Claims Management Regulator.

All claims handlers should be authorised by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ); visit claimsregulation.gov.uk for details. The rules state that a business should not cold call by telephone when a person is TPS registered “unless they have ‘opted in’”, and not cold call when a person has asked it to stop.

A spokesman for Consumer Money Matters says: “The staff referred to do not ‘sell’, they make appointments. If a client expresses a desire not to continue to call we always politely end the call. Our database is searched against the TPS regularly, as it is in our interests only to contact clients that have not objected to such calls. It is possible that a client has given express consent for a lead to be passed to us from another source whilst also being registered with the TPS.”

The Claims Management Regulator says: “Any company that breaks the rules will be investigated and subject to the appropriate enforcement action — this can range from a warning to the suspension or cancellation of their licence.”
However, some companies have found ways around the regulations. People can inadvertently “opt in” and give their consent to be called by clicking through a website. And some companies tuck away in the small print statements that give consent to a person’s contact details being used, and say that this overrides any TPS registrations.

Other companies openly flout the rules, presumably in the belief that they will be able to make enough money before they are caught. When they are found out they are often closed, only for the directors to start up another company doing exactly the same thing.
Mark Hetherington, an IT manager from Reigate, Surrey, has had dozens of calls over recent weeks from a company that claims that he has a PPI plan that was mis-sold and that he is entitled to compensation. He says: “I am under a constant barrage from these people. When I have asked where they are calling from they have refused to identify the company they work for or how they got my information and seem oblivious to the fact that I have never taken out PPI on financial products.”
The calls seem to point to a company called First (or 1st) Call Connect, which is not registered with the MoJ, and when Times Money called no one picked up the phone.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) also has the power to act against companies that make nuisance calls. It urges anyone who receives unwanted calls to first tell the caller to stop and, if they refuse, to lodge a complaint at ico.gov.uk or 030-312 31113.
Since the end of May the ICO has been given extensive new powers to fine offending businesses up to £500,000. Consumer groups say that it needs to use these powers soon because companies are not fearful enough of regulatory action.
Stephen McGlade, of the Which? Legal Service, the legal arm of the consumer organisation, says: “The Information Commissioner needs to step up and set an example with a fine.”

The Claims Management Regulator is also being urged to look at upfront fees. Companies are allowed to charge these but they can lead to costly decisions that people live to regret.

Barry Allen, a pensioner from Bournemouth, was called by We Fight Any Claim (WFAC), a Bridgend-based claims handler advertised by the former boxer Joe Calzaghe, in December. He was told that he could claim back PPI and, after initial scepticism, he decided to hand over £490 as an upfront fee to the firm.

WFAC says that it has not breached any rules: “Mr Allen was not cold called; he was transferred to WFAC from a third party. Further, cold calling is not prohibited in the context of regulated claims management activity.

“In general terms, we do not deem a claim to be unsuccessful until we have verified a lender’s response, in which case a full refund would be made if unsuccessful. When Mr Allen asked to cancel his claim he was informed that we do reserve the right to levy a reasonable charge for work carried out to date. However, as a gesture of goodwill on this occasion we are willing to refund Mr Allen the fees he has paid to us.”

‘I object to them phoning children’
Case study
Julie Marshall, a social worker from Sheffield, was surprised when she picked up a call on her mobile phone from a claims management company called HYC (Help Your Claim) because her phone is listed on the Telephone Preference Service (TPS). She had assumed that this would protect her from such calls.

She says: “When I answered the phone a woman started saying how I was owed £1,000 back in PPI. I told her I didn’t know what she was talking about.”

The caller was not deterred. Julie, 41, continues: “She asked me if in the past ten years I had ever taken out a loan. I said ‘no’. A credit agreement? I said ‘no’. And a mortgage? — to which I said ‘no’, even though I have. She then said it must be a mistake and rang off. I’ve since reported the call to the TPS. I get annoyed by being phoned and disturbed at home by people I don’t know as I find it an intrusion into my personal life.”

Julie’s 13 year-old son has also received cold calls from other companies on his mobile phone, registered in Julie’s name.
She says: “I very much object to them phoning children when we very clearly haven’t given my son’s mobile number to any company .” Times Money asked HYC to comment but it refused.

Help to stop cold calling
Register your number with the Telephone Preference Service (www.tpsonline.org.uk or 0845 0700707). It is not perfect but it should stop most calls

Think twice before providing your number to a third party. If necessary, give a work number

Check privacy policies and terms and conditions carefully to make sure that you are not “opting in” to receive calls that you do not want If you receive an unwanted call tell the caller to stop and remove your number from its database.

If you are signed up to the TPS, say so If the calls don’t stop ask for the name of the company calling and take its number. Whocallsme.com can help you to trace who is phoning

Report nuisance callers to the Information Commissioner’s Office at ico.gov.uk or on 030-312 31113

The settlements which so far has been offered has anyone checked that they are correct and whether that includes interest?

My guess is if they dont say it is a gesture of goodwill then it is not and it should be a full settlement completely reimbursing for what has been paid including interest, the fact that they have not wasted time in checking if it was mis-sold or not, that would have taken too many man hours..

I still believe this to be true, and what their legal department stated to me the other seems to be coming true.

We've now seen a few Halifax settlement letters (and Lloyds for that matter as well). They are very interesting reading and not quite what I was expecting from them.

If you grab hold of one of them - you'll see what I mean. They start off with a brief synopsis of the JR and then they go straight into 'here's your settlement figures'. There's no mention of whether they've investigated, whether they're upholding or whether they're making a gesture of goodwill - just here's your money.

Even though they won't confirm anything, I think Lloyds are doing the same thing.

Lloyds have, apparently, sent out over a 100,000 settlement letters in the past week. That's a lot of letters. My personal opinion is that it's highly unlikely that they can investigate that many complaints in such a short period of time.

Time will tell if what I was told is correct, however, I'm not even getting a sniff of a decline coming out of Lloyds at the moment.

TBD.

[EXC]

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

From today's Times.


Barrage of cold calls leads to demand for ban

Outcry after claims handlers persist in harassing people even after they have taken steps to stop nuisance calls

A ban on cold calling by claims handlers is being demanded after evidence emerged that companies are routinely flouting the existing safeguards and bombarding people with nuisance phone calls and texts.
Citizens Advice, which earlier this year called for cold calls by credit or debt management firms to be outlawed, said this week that a ban should be extended to claims management companies that call or text out of the blue.

The announcement follows a Times Money investigation that found that claims companies are harassing people after they have asked them to stop, breaching legal restrictions, and an industry whistleblower revealed the hard-sell tactics used to target potential customers.

Peter Tutton, a policy officer at Citizens Advice, says: “We believe a ban on cold calling is the only way to tackle this problem effectively. The Telephone Preference Service [TPS] is helpful, but any system where you have to actively opt in to protect yourself from unwanted calls is not going to be enough. Our evidence demonstrates beyond doubt that cold calling can be a gateway for both bad practice and fraud.”

The Government is already under pressure to get tough on claims firms that hound people about payment protection insurance (PPI), personal injury claims and mortgage mis-selling. Jack Straw, the MP for Blackburn and former Justice Secretary, called for “much tighter legislation of claims companies” last week after publishing a report into the backhanders paid to insurers by claims firms for customers’ personal details.

Shortcomings in the existing safeguards mean that people can feel powerless to stop cold calls, even if their phone numbers are supposed to be protected.

A subscriber to the TPS should be shielded from cold calls after he or she has been on its register for 28 days. However, consumers who have signed up to the service say that the phone calls don’t stop, and claims handlers are often the culprits.
Christina Kebbell, a home-school support worker from Kent, found that signing up to the TPS did not stop calls from Chase Alexander Associates, a claims handler based in Manchester.

She says: “When I answered the phone I was asked for by name. When I confirmed who I was the caller said, ‘We have been given your details by the Financial Services Authority, who have asked us to call you regarding your mortgage’. When I said that the FSA would not have details of my mortgage and certainly wouldn’t pass them on, as it would be a breach of the Data Protection Act, the caller played dumb and ended the call. Later that afternoon I received a call from a different person from the same company who launched into the same spiel.”

Seb Alexanderson, the managing director of Chase Alexander Associates, claims that the company would never have mentioned the FSA as a source of data, although Mrs Kebbell is adamant that it did. He adds: “All our data is provided on the proviso that it is checked against TPS and the client has ‘opted in’ for a phone call.”

The FSA would like to stress that it does not have individuals’ mortgage details and that if it did it would not pass them on to a claims handler.

Sometimes pointing out that you have signed up to the TPS or a simple request to not phone again is enough to make the calls stop. However, excuses are often offered as to why the TPS does not apply by employees of companies under intense pressure to turn calls into sales, according to a source who until recently worked for Consumer Money Matters, a claims handler based in Leicester.

The source says: “We had to follow a script ... and when people said that they were on the TPS we said they had opted in for a call so the TPS doesn’t apply.”

Further protection is supposed to be provided by the conduct rules of the Claims Management Regulator.

All claims handlers should be authorised by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ); visit claimsregulation.gov.uk for details. The rules state that a business should not cold call by telephone when a person is TPS registered “unless they have ‘opted in’”, and not cold call when a person has asked it to stop.

A spokesman for Consumer Money Matters says: “The staff referred to do not ‘sell’, they make appointments. If a client expresses a desire not to continue to call we always politely end the call. Our database is searched against the TPS regularly, as it is in our interests only to contact clients that have not objected to such calls. It is possible that a client has given express consent for a lead to be passed to us from another source whilst also being registered with the TPS.”

The Claims Management Regulator says: “Any company that breaks the rules will be investigated and subject to the appropriate enforcement action — this can range from a warning to the suspension or cancellation of their licence.”
However, some companies have found ways around the regulations. People can inadvertently “opt in” and give their consent to be called by clicking through a website. And some companies tuck away in the small print statements that give consent to a person’s contact details being used, and say that this overrides any TPS registrations.

Other companies openly flout the rules, presumably in the belief that they will be able to make enough money before they are caught. When they are found out they are often closed, only for the directors to start up another company doing exactly the same thing.
Mark Hetherington, an IT manager from Reigate, Surrey, has had dozens of calls over recent weeks from a company that claims that he has a PPI plan that was mis-sold and that he is entitled to compensation. He says: “I am under a constant barrage from these people. When I have asked where they are calling from they have refused to identify the company they work for or how they got my information and seem oblivious to the fact that I have never taken out PPI on financial products.”
The calls seem to point to a company called First (or 1st) Call Connect, which is not registered with the MoJ, and when Times Money called no one picked up the phone.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) also has the power to act against companies that make nuisance calls. It urges anyone who receives unwanted calls to first tell the caller to stop and, if they refuse, to lodge a complaint at ico.gov.uk or 030-312 31113.
Since the end of May the ICO has been given extensive new powers to fine offending businesses up to £500,000. Consumer groups say that it needs to use these powers soon because companies are not fearful enough of regulatory action.
Stephen McGlade, of the Which? Legal Service, the legal arm of the consumer organisation, says: “The Information Commissioner needs to step up and set an example with a fine.”

The Claims Management Regulator is also being urged to look at upfront fees. Companies are allowed to charge these but they can lead to costly decisions that people live to regret.

Barry Allen, a pensioner from Bournemouth, was called by We Fight Any Claim (WFAC), a Bridgend-based claims handler advertised by the former boxer Joe Calzaghe, in December. He was told that he could claim back PPI and, after initial scepticism, he decided to hand over £490 as an upfront fee to the firm.

WFAC says that it has not breached any rules: “Mr Allen was not cold called; he was transferred to WFAC from a third party. Further, cold calling is not prohibited in the context of regulated claims management activity.

“In general terms, we do not deem a claim to be unsuccessful until we have verified a lender’s response, in which case a full refund would be made if unsuccessful. When Mr Allen asked to cancel his claim he was informed that we do reserve the right to levy a reasonable charge for work carried out to date. However, as a gesture of goodwill on this occasion we are willing to refund Mr Allen the fees he has paid to us.”

‘I object to them phoning children’
Case study
Julie Marshall, a social worker from Sheffield, was surprised when she picked up a call on her mobile phone from a claims management company called HYC (Help Your Claim) because her phone is listed on the Telephone Preference Service (TPS). She had assumed that this would protect her from such calls.

She says: “When I answered the phone a woman started saying how I was owed £1,000 back in PPI. I told her I didn’t know what she was talking about.”

The caller was not deterred. Julie, 41, continues: “She asked me if in the past ten years I had ever taken out a loan. I said ‘no’. A credit agreement? I said ‘no’. And a mortgage? — to which I said ‘no’, even though I have. She then said it must be a mistake and rang off. I’ve since reported the call to the TPS. I get annoyed by being phoned and disturbed at home by people I don’t know as I find it an intrusion into my personal life.”

Julie’s 13 year-old son has also received cold calls from other companies on his mobile phone, registered in Julie’s name.
She says: “I very much object to them phoning children when we very clearly haven’t given my son’s mobile number to any company .” Times Money asked HYC to comment but it refused.

Help to stop cold calling
Register your number with the Telephone Preference Service (www.tpsonline.org.uk or 0845 0700707). It is not perfect but it should stop most calls

Think twice before providing your number to a third party. If necessary, give a work number

Check privacy policies and terms and conditions carefully to make sure that you are not “opting in” to receive calls that you do not want If you receive an unwanted call tell the caller to stop and remove your number from its database.

If you are signed up to the TPS, say so If the calls don’t stop ask for the name of the company calling and take its number. Whocallsme.com can help you to trace who is phoning

Report nuisance callers to the Information Commissioner’s Office at ico.gov.uk or on 030-312 31113

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

The settlements which so far has been offered has anyone checked that they are correct and whether that includes interest?

My guess is if they dont say it is a gesture of goodwill then it is not and it should be a full settlement completely reimbursing for what has been paid including interest, the fact that they have not wasted time in checking if it was mis-sold or not, that would have taken too many man hours..

I still believe this to be true, and what their legal department stated to me the other seems to be coming true.

We've now seen a few Halifax settlement letters (and Lloyds for that matter as well). They are very interesting reading and not quite what I was expecting from them.

If you grab hold of one of them - you'll see what I mean. They start off with a brief synopsis of the JR and then they go straight into 'here's your settlement figures'. There's no mention of whether they've investigated, whether they're upholding or whether they're making a gesture of goodwill - just here's your money.

Even though they won't confirm anything, I think Lloyds are doing the same thing.

Lloyds have, apparently, sent out over a 100,000 settlement letters in the past week. That's a lot of letters. My personal opinion is that it's highly unlikely that they can investigate that many complaints in such a short period of time.

Time will tell if what I was told is correct, however, I'm not even getting a sniff of a decline coming out of Lloyds at the moment.

TBD.

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

david.chan@barclaycard.co.uk

Good luck

when i used that email address things GOT SORTED pretty darn quick

[Leucareth1971]

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

Thanks Di

[di30]

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

Hi Does anyone have the email for the CEO of Barclaycard,thanks

david.chan@barclaycard.co.uk

Good luck

[Leucareth1971]

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

Hi Does anyone have the email for the CEO of Barclaycard,thanks

[leclerc]

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

TBD, they can't because they have until the end of August to investigate and give a response. They are in a mess and I've heard that even their own staff are worried as to whether they will complete the task within that timescale.

[The_Big_Dog]

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

is it confirmed that HBOS are paying out no quibble then or is it just that they will be sorting it all by 31st august like everyone else... ?

don't wanna get too excited just yet..

I still believe this to be true, and what their legal department stated to me the other seems to be coming true.

We've now seen a few Halifax settlement letters (and Lloyds for that matter as well). They are very interesting reading and not quite what I was expecting from them.

If you grab hold of one of them - you'll see what I mean. They start off with a brief synopsis of the JR and then they go straight into 'here's your settlement figures'. There's no mention of whether they've investigated, whether they're upholding or whether they're making a gesture of goodwill - just here's your money.

Even though they won't confirm anything, I think Lloyds are doing the same thing.

Lloyds have, apparently, sent out over a 100,000 settlement letters in the past week. That's a lot of letters. My personal opinion is that it's highly unlikely that they can investigate that many complaints in such a short period of time.

Time will tell if what I was told is correct, however, I'm not even getting a sniff of a decline coming out of Lloyds at the moment.

TBD.

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

By way of an update on my PPI claims:

1. Cap One deny their credit card PPI was mis-sold, stating it was a non-advised sale on the 'phone and, as non-advised, "tough luck"
2. First Direct have sent yet another holding letter with no confirmed date for their Final Response - just that I'll get one eventually (frst complained about the PPI in December '10)
3. FOS have returned my First Direct Quezzy and Complaint Form, telling me to wait until i get my First Direct Final Response (despite the fact that the bank said I could go to the FOS if I wanted to, pre-JR)
4. Marbles have told me to complain to HSBC and HSBC have told me to complain to Marbles.
5. FOS have returned my Marbles PPI Quezzy and Complaint Form telling me I need to get a Final Response from HSBC, despite HSBC telling me to complain to Marbles.

So, all in all, frustrating, crap, pathetic, a total mockery of the JR.

[mosten]

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

Original loan amount £7802.46
Total amount payable £12,008.54
Monthly repayments were for £200.15 for 60 months, final payment made 24th August 2004.



Can you remember or could you find out, how much you actually got put into your bank to spend..

It looks to me like if you had say 6500 into your account to spend then a single premium of 1302.46 which would have been added on top would give the figure of original loan amount which you have..

They lend you the money to cover both things upfront, 6500 to you, 1302.46 would have been sent to the insurance company...

If you remember getting over 7500 to spend then it would make me believe you didnt have the PPI on loan.. Knowing the interest isn't really gonna tell you anything

I got the interest rate from working backwards to 18.48% roughly by the way...

[flossie]

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

I am not having much luck with M&S Money, having had a store card/credit card mis-sell refused earlier this week, I received a letter today regarding the complaint about PPI on a personal loan taken out in 1999.

I wrote initially in January 2011 and had a letter in March placing it on hold due to JR. Having emailed and hassled a bit they said last week they would look into it and get me a response this week.

Their response today was that they have no paperwork so cannot confirm I even had PPI. I can't quite understand why this was placed on hold as the JR would not have applied if what they are saying is true.

They have asked for any further information I can give them.

All I have is an M&S loan update. It shows
Original loan amount £7802.46
Total amount payable £12,008.54
Monthly repayments were for £200.15 for 60 months, final payment made 24th August 2004.

Is there anyone out that that can work out from that if they think I had PPI? I am sure I did but cannot find any interest rates applicable to loans in 1999 to work out any figures.

Do they really dispose of all paperwork once the loan is paid off. I have had accounts with M&S Money for the past 26 years either in the form of credit card or loan. Won't be for much longer now!

[Paul210]

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

UPDATE FROM LTSB

apparantly when lloyds say they will deal with judicial review cases in chronological order they dont quite know what that means, I've seen responses on complaints lodged in dec and jan this morning while I still have complaints from oct/nov outstanding.

Upon speaking to LTSB about this it appears they place a loose interpretation on chronological, aparrantly if your account number starts with 100xxxxxxxx then its being looked at now, in date order, if however it starts with 1000xxxxxxxx then theyve not even started on it yet, even if it is one of the early ones. For the sake of an extra 0 it looks like there could be yet more delays.

[Paul210]

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

thanks , have you heard anything from the email address?

No response as yet, I chased up with them yesterday and they advised can take upto 3 working days to respond to emails depending on volumes received so may be monday.

I have however today received copies of response letters issued yesterday so it looks like the issue has been resolved going forward so thats something at least.

[EXC]

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

My understanding was that the store sold its own brand store cards, which were probably funded by a third party - perhaps Abbey - (is that what you mean by a "distributor"?). This third party was subsequently taken over by Santander. The store cards are typically Debenhams, Evans and Monsoon.
If my understanding is correct, who is respondible for the sale and does the FOS have any role to play when Santander and/or the FLA rejects the claim?
JDEH

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.