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

[dogtired]

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

I am still awaiting a reply/cheque from M and S money, letter from Barclays saying I may get a reply by 28th July the two with FOS
are taking a long time.
One going to ombudsman, when quite clearly the documents supplied by Cabot could have been for anyone as they did not have any details on them the other is the same but still awaiting adjudicator on that one!
Now I am not sure about what is happening with another with Welcome Finance who appear to be making the rules up as they go along, this too is awaiting a decision from the FOS who told me verbally two years ago that they had told them to "cease collection activity".
The news then came out that they had, in effect ceased trading and that any ppi claims were being dealt with by the FCS.
I did inquire as it is now into its third year with FOS and was told that the pre 1995 cases were being dealt with by Welcome themselves (we had "won" this via the FOS but refused to accept it as Welcome were treating it as a "new" loan .)
I did a SAR back in 2008 when I got this back it had bits "missing" and had documents with our old address on and a different account number so in effect there was nothing to say that this account existed.
Out of the blue at the beginning of the year I had mail from a debt collector, (no assignment or anything like) sent a "prove it" letter, sent copy of it to FOS.
Got another last week, again sent "prove it" letter and sent copy to FOS.
Just what is happening do not really want to get back in touch with Welcome but FOS are stilL saying it may take some time for Ombudsman's decision, would the previous PPI judgment stand?

[debtisbad]

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

Please, see my original post:
Legal Beagles Consumer Forum - View Single Post - Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

And for the avoidance of doubt, I will quote an extract from an MBNA letter dated July 2008, which was signed by Gail Powell:



Naughty MBNA!

I had an almost identical letter from MBNA/Abbey, but went to the FOS anyway. My complaint was upheld and I was paid out. MBNA/Abbey wrote back apologizing for their "oversight" and I received payment, plus interest, plus compensation.

[mosten]

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

cunning plan we will send them off tomorrow then an see what happens.. ta very much..

[The_Big_Dog]

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

so a SAR you can request for even if sale took place over 6 years ago...? The guy who is asking me said that he is sure the PPI was about 6000 on top of his 20000 loan so would be massive claim if he can do it.. he took loan out through Norton finance and lender was first plus in 2004

You can do an SAR for however far back you want - the only snag is the lender may hide behind the Statute of Limitations Act and state - 'sorry, we've destroyed the file'. It's got to be worth a go for a claim that large. I would also speak to First Plus to see what info they've got on file - I'd say that they would definately have records on the loan as it's likely the loan would have been running in the past 6 years so at least you're going to get credit agreements, transcripts of calls etc to have a peek at (Just because Norton were the broker, it doesn't automatically follow that they also sold the PPI - it could well be the case that FP sold it to him when conducting their final checks on the loan - Nemo were the masters at doing that).

I think an SAR to both of them would be of benefit to your case before going to Norton with a full blown complaint. If Norton do turn around and state they haven't got any record or recordings or any info at all - they're going to find it tough to defend a complaint going in there aren't they?

[mosten]

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

so a SAR you can request for even if sale took place over 6 years ago...? The guy who is asking me said that he is sure the PPI was about 6000 on top of his 20000 loan so would be massive claim if he can do it.. he took loan out through Norton finance and lender was first plus in 2004

[The_Big_Dog]

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

trying to get Norton to admit anything is like nailing jelly to the ceiling,

that did make my chuckle...

Great advice as always ... thanks.. I'll pass on to both of the guys asking...

Mosten,

The first advice I'd give you is that it's very likely that Norton will defend on the basis of a non-advised sale and that they weren't recommending any product and only giving information.

I'd send Norton a SAR and secifically ask them for a recording (not transcript) of the calls which occurred between them and your friends. Once you've got that back, have a good listen to it and you're looking for 3 things in there. Firstly, what was disclosed to the borrower about the policy. Now, all Norton's sales are done by telephone, so you're looking for full disclosure of the policy details as the sale was conducted orally, which is one of the common failings cited by the FSA in their open letter. The FSA have also stated in there that if a sale is conducted orally, the info has to be disclosed in the same medium (and I'll bet the farm they haven't done that).
Secondly, what you're looking for is the sales agent would have been speaking from a script - how quick is he/she speaking. If he/she is speaking too quickly, it's very easy for a borrower to not understand what they're saying, and pay particular attention when it comes to the 'this will only cover you for the first 5 years' bit of the conversation.
Finally, based on the info the borrower gives them in the loan application - how suitable is the policy for the borrowers needs? If the client's self employed (a fact they will know about when doing the loan underwriting), then they have to disclose self employment onerous terms to the borrower. If they haven't done it - goodnight Vienna - they can't argue 'it's non-advised!' if they're in possession of the facts because they would have had to disclose under both ICOB and GISC rules.

[nelliewops]

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

trying to get Norton to admit anything is like nailing jelly to the ceiling,

that did make my chuckle...

Great advice as always ... thanks.. I'll pass on to both of the guys asking...

Hi Mosten,

I had success against Norton last year - I've a thread here somewhere documenting my journey - although this was a for a Swift Advances secured loan dating from 2006. I would agree with TBD that Norton are very, very hard to deal with but my tenacity paid off in the end and I got back a substantial sum.

Tell your friends to stick at it and don't be fobbed off, I'm sure they'll be rewarded for their persistence

Good Luck!

Nellie x

[mosten]

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

trying to get Norton to admit anything is like nailing jelly to the ceiling,

that did make my chuckle...

Great advice as always ... thanks.. I'll pass on to both of the guys asking...

[pompeyfaith]

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

Limitation Act 1980

Fraud, concealment and mistake

32 Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake.

(1) Subject to [F26subsection (3)][F26subsections (3) and (4A)] below, where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either—
(a)the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or
(b)any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or
(c)the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;
the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.
References in this subsection to the defendant include references to the defendant’s agent and to any person through whom the defendant claims and his agent.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty.
(3)Nothing in this section shall enable any action—
(a)to recover, or recover the value of, any property; or
(b)to enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property;
to be brought against the purchaser of the property or any person claiming through him in any case where the property has been purchased for valuable consideration by an innocent third party since the fraud or concealment or (as the case may be) the transaction in which the mistake was made took place.
(4)A purchaser is an innocent third party for the purposes of this section—
(a)in the case of fraud or concealment of any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action, if he was not a party to the fraud or (as the case may be) to the concealment of that fact and did not at the time of the purchase know or have reason to believe that the fraud or concealment had taken place; and
(b)in the case of mistake, if he did not at that time of the purchase know or have reason to believe that the mistake had been made.

Lets not forget many PPI Sales can be the result of a financial mistake and/or wrong and indeed on many sales pre 2007 that where not subject to a multiple agreement Concealment can also be the case.

So the above s32 can apply which states that the limitation period starts from the point of discovery.

I have no doubts there are many many consumers out there that still do not know they are paying PPI.

So in those cases the 6 yr limitation period has not even started yet.

Regards

[EXC]

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

Please, see my original post:
Legal Beagles Consumer Forum - View Single Post - Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

Why? I saw it at the time.

[The_Big_Dog]

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

What if someone had a PPI claim taken through a garage in say 2003...

Can they still claim ?

Also First Plus used to sell a lot of LOANS/PPI through Norton Finance... Again, what if secured loan taken out 2004 with them...?

Can they claim ?

There are some confusions regards time scales if broker involved and also I read somewhere, maybe on previous LB thread that the original super complaint mentioned being able to go back 8 yrs not 6 and that a lot of the industry actually assume it is 6 yrs in some cases when its actually longer...

I'm getting a bit confused dot com now, so much to take in

These are tricky at the best of times. You could try and prove an Agent & Principal relationship between the insurer and their agent selling the ppi. If it can be proved, then you can legitimately go for the insurer as they've profited from the transaction. Eventhough the broker isn't under FOS juristiction, the insurer will be. The only snag is the length of time it takes the FOS to investigate these cases. I've got a few of these in with them and for the past 12 months, all I've had is letters from them stating that they are investigating whether they can investigate the complaint I've put in. As it taken them ages just to find out if the can investigate at all, I'm not holding my breath, but if they say - no, outside juristiction, I'll argue like hell with them.

Norton is very tricky - trying to get Norton to admit anything is like nailing jelly to the ceiling, however, Norton has got seperate branches. Norton Finance only came under juristiction in 2007, so anything prior to that it's outside FOS juristiction, however, there's also a Norton Insurance Services, which has been under juristiction sine 2002. So, I'd argue that any sale made by Norton, should have been made through Norton Insurance Services, and as such, is under FOS juristiction. Again, I've got a couple of these in with the FOS at the mo, and I'm waiting to hear. I think if it hits someone in there who's got technical knowledge, I think they'll take it on.

I don't know whether you're talking about the 6 year complaint rule or not, but the guidelines are as follows (and every lender points out the first bit but they tend to omit the second bit when it suits them):

You have 6 years, from the date of the sale in which to bring a complaint for a financial product; or 3 years from when you became aware, or should have been reasonably aware, of there being a problem.

I would say that for PPI sales, the majority of people will fall under the second criteria (3 years from when you became aware) and the FOS will look at those complaints all day long.

TBD.

[pompeyfaith]

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

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/news/ne....cfm?news=2319

http://www.ccrmagazine.com/index.php...5178&Itemid=35

[The_Big_Dog]

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

It's been a very interesting day today for me. 2 good bits of news to report - firstly, we saw 2 Barclays settlement calcs coming in this morning. The first was just under £2k but the second one was a whopping £9,500. Coupled with an Amex, Lloyds and Barclaycard uphold I'm a very happy bunny this evening.
Second bit of news concerns the Lloyds settlement received. It was one of the first ones we received an on hold letter for during the JR, so we packaged it and sent it to the FOS. They adjudicated on it last month and DECLINED it, and despite submissions from me the adjudicator wouldn't budge, so it begs the question - why have the FOS declined a complaint when Lloyds have upheld it?

[mosten]

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

What if someone had a PPI claim taken through a garage in say 2003...

Can they still claim ?

Also First Plus used to sell a lot of LOANS/PPI through Norton Finance... Again, what if secured loan taken out 2004 with them...?

Can they claim ?

There are some confusions regards time scales if broker involved and also I read somewhere, maybe on previous LB thread that the original super complaint mentioned being able to go back 8 yrs not 6 and that a lot of the industry actually assume it is 6 yrs in some cases when its actually longer...

I'm getting a bit confused dot com now, so much to take in

[The_Big_Dog]

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

TBG, I'll come back to you on the issue of checklists because I think you have kinda hit the nail on the head when you have said good CMC's and bad CMC's. Good ones know that you should supply as much evidence as possible about PPI missold loan which is specific to the client, bad ones simply take basic details don't seek complete information and ultimately provide poor service and poor press fro the CMC industry.

I do need to bring your attention to the latest edition of Ombudsman news which does have an article related to PPI claims via agencies
issue 94 - making a complaint on your behalf – consumer complaints brought by third parties

Do you know what Leclerc? I'm shocked at Mr. G's case. I had to re-read it a couple of times just to make sure (I understood the first time but I wanted to re-read it because I didn't believe what I was reading). Frivilous and vexatious aren't quite the words I'd use. I'm actually ashamed that a company in the same industry as mine would act in such an unprofessional manner, very disappointed and very angry.

My initial thought is the CMC have got no defence whatsoever for sending that to the FOS. Everyone knows how busy and understaffed they are and to waste their time with crap is ridiculous. There's a way of stopping them doing it again - suspend their licence, because they're aren't fit and proper to hold it in the first place. How are we, as an industry, ever going to gain respect when parts of it are pulling stunts such as that - whats the point? Surely the lender stating 'Mr. G hasn't got PPI and here's the CCA to prove it' should have either a) made them realise their claim was dead or, at the very least, b) started the alarm bells ringing, yet they referred it straight to the FOS - these aren't the actions of a professional claims handler.

TBD.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Please, see my original post:
Legal Beagles Consumer Forum - View Single Post - Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

And for the avoidance of doubt, I will quote an extract from an MBNA letter dated July 2008, which was signed by Gail Powell:



Naughty MBNA!

Forgive me because I don't know the full story behind this, but MBNA got into hot water with the FSA over this letter a while ago when they were intimating that the FOS wouldn't look at their complaint when it clearly came under FOS juristiction. They had to settle every claim they sent out one of these letters on to avoid a fine - which they did.