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

[Angry Cat]

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

One in four consumers unaware claims management companies take cut of their PPI claim - April - 2012 - Which? News

[Bill-K]

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

The pot and the kettle again, innit ? The banks - poor dears - have found themselves up against the very monsters they created. The "PPI Reclaim Industry" only exists because of the banks' own greed and heartlessness. The denizens who inhabit that industry are merely playing by the rules the banks have written - and abused - themselves. It's known as a 'level playing-field,' or 'fighting fire with fire.'

So, those who created this massive scandal are pointing at those whom this scandal has spawned and whingeing about "malpractice." It's not just pathetic - it's disgusting - but it's the sincerest form of flattery.

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

The stink that the banks have left behind them is nobody else's but theirs. The flies that have gathered are there by the banks' own implied invitation.
"...I'd give it five minutes, if I were you."

[Angry Cat]

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

It has been noted that, the Banks are whining again:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/n...m-bullies.html

[EXC]

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

EXC It feels as though you made a disagreement in relation to your own differing views and a persons opinion in a professional role into something personal which just isn't appropriate.

It wasn't about a disagreement of AK's opinion.

The message was clearly referencing the BBA's member banks' court loss and not any individual. As AK is or at least was the public representative for the industry it was not inappropriate.

[skv123]

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

EXC It feels as though you made a disagreement in relation to your own differing views and a persons opinion in a professional role into something personal which just isn't appropriate.

I know you have a lot of knowledge and have helped a lot of people on the forum but the sending of the wreath does rather leave a sour taste.

[cappo]

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

I did but he is so stupid that I concluded it would have no effect.


Dear Sir

Thank-you for you e mail regarding the letter that was delivered to you by one of my officers, Detective Constable Rees.

I note that you do not deny sending the material. I can assure you that I am an expert in the Protection from Harrassment Act having arrested and prosecuted dozens of offenders throughout the country for a bizarre range of incidents. Yours is another one of those cases.

You have been formally warned by me on behalf of the city of London Police for what is ' First Instance Harrasment'. This is designed to prevent an reoccurrence of the harrassment.

Should you continue then, that will constitute a course of conduct and you will be liable to arrest and prosecution. I hope we are clear on that and that you will refrain from similar behaviour.

I should point out that you could be prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act. One I have frequently used during first instance harrassment. Should you actions cause considerable distress then it has been held that this amounts to Assault Occassioning Actual Bodily Harm. Sending a person a Wreath could easily lead to severe distress.

So to conclude. If you behave yourself then nothing further will happen. However I am quite prepared to take firm action against you should you offend again.

Richard Jack
Detective Chief Inspector.






Dear Mr Jack

I am disappointed with both the content and tone of your response.

Before issuing a formal warning, you have a duty to ensure the recipient understands the significance of the caution. Moreover, the recipient must give informed consent to it. It cannot have any effect unless a clear and reliable admission of the specific offence one is being cautioned for has been made.

In this instance, this is clearly not the case. During my meeting with DC Rees which concluded with him simply handing me the formal warning document, 'harassment' (sic) was not mentioned once. None the less, the warning itself is based entirely on your opinion that my action ''amounts to harassment''. You now state that ''You have been formally warned by me on behalf of the city of London Police for what is ' First Instance Harrasment' ''.

I wish to make it absolutely clear that if the formal warning is not withdrawn, I fully intend to pursue the matter with the Police Complaints Authority who's ''experts'', I trust., do not share your careless disregard for procedures, the misapprehension that the police can ''prosecute'' and who are capable of actually being able spell the subject matter of their claimed expertise - 'harassment' only has a single 'r'.

Good on you EXC bloody cheek

[EXC]

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

[quote=charitynjw;259921

Did you tell Richard JACK off?[/quote]

I did but he is so stupid that I concluded it would have no effect.


Dear Sir

Thank-you for you e mail regarding the letter that was delivered to you by one of my officers, Detective Constable Rees.

I note that you do not deny sending the material. I can assure you that I am an expert in the Protection from Harrassment Act having arrested and prosecuted dozens of offenders throughout the country for a bizarre range of incidents. Yours is another one of those cases.

You have been formally warned by me on behalf of the city of London Police for what is ' First Instance Harrasment'. This is designed to prevent an reoccurrence of the harrassment.

Should you continue then, that will constitute a course of conduct and you will be liable to arrest and prosecution. I hope we are clear on that and that you will refrain from similar behaviour.

I should point out that you could be prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act. One I have frequently used during first instance harrassment. Should you actions cause considerable distress then it has been held that this amounts to Assault Occassioning Actual Bodily Harm. Sending a person a Wreath could easily lead to severe distress.

So to conclude. If you behave yourself then nothing further will happen. However I am quite prepared to take firm action against you should you offend again.

Richard Jack
Detective Chief Inspector.






Dear Mr Jack

I am disappointed with both the content and tone of your response.

Before issuing a formal warning, you have a duty to ensure the recipient understands the significance of the caution. Moreover, the recipient must give informed consent to it. It cannot have any effect unless a clear and reliable admission of the specific offence one is being cautioned for has been made.

In this instance, this is clearly not the case. During my meeting with DC Rees which concluded with him simply handing me the formal warning document, 'harassment' (sic) was not mentioned once. None the less, the warning itself is based entirely on your opinion that my action ''amounts to harassment''. You now state that ''You have been formally warned by me on behalf of the city of London Police for what is ' First Instance Harrasment' ''.

I wish to make it absolutely clear that if the formal warning is not withdrawn, I fully intend to pursue the matter with the Police Complaints Authority who's ''experts'', I trust., do not share your careless disregard for procedures, the misapprehension that the police can ''prosecute'' and who are capable of actually being able spell the subject matter of their claimed expertise - 'harassment' only has a single 'r'.

[Angry Cat]

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

Wonderful...HA HA HA HA HAH!

[charitynjw]

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

Blimey EXC! - a bit OTT.

Did you tell Richard JACK off?

[EXC]

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

I won't miss her and I doubt she'll miss me.

When the first instance test case judgment was handed down I sent some flowers to Kate Farrow at the OFT to congratulate her on the win. While I was in the florist I thought it might be a giggle to send AK some flowers and a card offering my condolences on the sad death of her members' case. I thought it was quite amusing but apparently she didn't and I was subsequently collared by Special Branch.

[EXC]

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

Apparently even Celtic football club are muscling in on the PPI reclaiming scene now.

Celtic | PPP - Start Your Claim Process Now

Still, at least it wasn't Rangers.

[Bill-K]

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

Bye, Angie - I'm sure we'll meet again before long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RTWzsGO4Zc

[MBD23]

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

Angela Knight to step down from BBA - FT.com

[debtisbad]

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

Good. They should not have dishinestly ripped off their customers in the first place

[MBD23]

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

• Business
• Barclays

Barclays hints at higher PPI liability

Barclays has been forced to insert a new statement in its regulatory filings in the US to admit that the pace of PPI claims by customers has risen

• • Share
  • reddit this

• Jill Treanor
• guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 March 2012 19.15 BST
• Article history

Barclays has admitted that it might need to raise its PPI liability. Photograph: Paul Hackett / Reuters/Reuters

Barclays has hinted that it might need to increase its £1bn provision for mis-selling of payment protection insurance after a surge in claims during March.
Just three weeks after publishing its annual report, the bank has been forced to insert a new statement in its regulatory filings in the US to admit that the pace of claims by customers has risen.
"Subsequent to the approval of the 2011 financial statements on 7 March 2012, Barclays has observed an increase in PPI complaint volumes in recent weeks. It is too soon to determine whether this increase may have a material impact," the bank said in the filing for US regulators.
The bank took a £1bn provision for PPI claims in 2011, some £565m of which is yet to be used. It has made clear that it, like other banks, has based the value of the provision on a number of "interdependent assumptions" to decide on the value of the provision. It followed a move by Lloyds Banking Group to take a £3.2bn hit for PPI misselling.
The bank admits that many of the assumptions have been "highly subjective" and not always easy to measure. "When considering the key assumptions independently, the most significant driver of the provision is complaint flow. If the level of complaints were 10% higher (lower) than the estimated level for all policies, assuming no change in other assumptions, then the provision would have increased (decreased) by approximately £100m," Barclays said.
The bank did not provide any detail about the increase in the size of complaints it had received in March, although data provided by the Financial Services Authority last week found that Barclays had been the most complained-about bank in the last half of 2011 – albeit not just for PPI.