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......

...The FOS was established in 2001 (the same year that GISC came into effect) and although they are accountable to the FSA it’s a bit of a myth that they didn’t and don’t consider cases of PPI that applied to the GISC era prior to the FSA regulating insurance under ICOB & ICOBS.

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:

I understand that you may decide to pursue your complaint; however, I must advise you that as your complaint regarding the sale of PPC relates to a period that is outside of the time-limits for referral to the Financial Ombudsman Service, they will be unable to deal with your complaint unless there are exceptional circumstances.

We will not enter into any further correspondence reagrding this matter.

Yours sincerely

Gail Powell
Vice President

Naughty MBNA!

[nelliewops]

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

So he doesnt say what if anything specifically changed his mind, simply that he had, not very helpfull really, the least he could do is point you to an event which generated his U-turn - if for nothing more than your own peace of mind.
No, but I am inclined to write back and ask him to be more specific!

Hopefully the ombudsman you get will be more accomodating, good luck. Thanks Paul - me too!

Will keep you updated

[EXC]

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

Would it not be fairer if going down this route to have a scale based on the number of cases referred to FOS in the previous period?(obviously would have to exclude oct10-May11 and use pro rata average for last 12 months as otherwise will be artificially high due to JR delays) - Surely FOS could provide data in order to stop firms under reporting the quantity ?

The problem is that claims management is a emerging industry with now players jumping on the bandwagon up all the time. The ideal would be to charge for each case submitted but of course that is all too easy for the CMC to pass on the charge. There's no easy solution.

But the way that the regulatory landscape is shaping up there will be fewer opportunities for reclaiming as the FSA are getting serious about the stance that the new regulator (Financial Conduct Authority) will take in being much more interventionist and pro-active, nipping lousy products and mis-selling in the bud before they get out of control.

It's worth reading the speech given by Hector Sants to the banks yesterday BBA Speech

''In conclusion, I hope my remarks today have given you a clear sense of how the PRA and FCA will operate. I hope it has also stimulated a debate to ensure that the approach is one that is fully understood and supported by society as a whole. However, the most important point I would like to make today is that change in regulation itself will not be sufficient to achieve the improvements which society deserves. This needs significant change in the approach taken by the firms gathered here today. A restoration of trust requires a visible step change by you – the banks. PPI was a missed opportunity to demonstrate your intent. I urge you to take the next one.''

[Paul210]

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

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your comments

In my letter requesting that the complaint be escalated to an ombudsman I did express my surprise and disappointment that the adjudicator had led me to believe he was upholding my complaint, only to backtrack and reject it. I queried what his reasons for this about-turn might be and he did reply (in writing) addressing my concerns.

He said that he was 'initially minded to uphold' my complaint 'however after further information came in from the bank in response to my letter and further consideration by me of your complaint as a whole, I have come to the conclusion that I am no longer able to recommend upholding your complaint.' He goes on to say 'I do agree that it was perhaps not helpful in giving you an indication of how I was minded to recommend initially. However what is most important in my role is that I am satisfied my recommendation is fair and reasonable to both sides and on this occasion I have been minded to change my initial view.'

The adjudicator also enclosed copies of his correspondence with the bank. His initial letter to them states that he is 'of the opinion that the complaint should succeed.'

The bank's reply to him doesn't include any new evidence as to why my complaint should not succeed, but instead reels off the usual rubbish about how they have acted fairly and reasonably towards me at all times and moreover that had I had any concerns I should have raised these at the time rather than now...........which is hardly likely as the complaint is connected to mis-sold PPI and this only came to light in the last couple of years.

The adjudicator did however state that as he is unable to know for certain what would have occurred in a certain set of circumstances, it is his role to take into account what he believes is most likely to have happened based upon the information available to him.

I am now awaiting the complaint's escalation to an ombudsman.

Nellie x

So he doesnt say what if anything specifically changed his mind, simply that he had, not very helpfull really, the least he could do is point you to an event which generated his U-turn - if for nothing more than your own peace of mind.

Hopefully the ombudsman you get will be more accomodating, good luck.

[Paul210]

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

They have in Ombudsman news got a response to that argument:

"As claims-management companies are responsible for so much of the ombudsman service’s workload, surely they should have to contribute to your costs?

In our annual review published in May, we reported that 45% of the total number of complaints we received last year were brought on behalf of consumers by claims-management companies. In a further 5% of cases, consumers paid for professionals such as lawyers and accountants to bring complaints for them – and in another 5% of cases, complaints were made on behalf of consumers by friends, family and consumer representatives acting for free.

There’s a vast difference in the personal circumstances involved in these cases. And it’s ultimately a matter of individual choice for each consumer whether they want someone else to represent them in bringing their complaint – either to us or, in the first instance, to the financial business concerned. As the rules stand, we can’t charge those who represent consumers. And I can see there could be unintended consequences for consumers, if that were to happen.

However, we’ve always made it very clear that consumers wanting to complain can do it themselves, that we don’t see claims-management companies adding value, and that you’re no more likely to win your case going through a claims company than if you complain directly."

issue 94 - ombudsman focus: lawyering up

I wasn’t trying to say all cmc's are brilliant with the exception of that one, simply that there are a number of bad ones out there and unfortunately they tend to get much more negative press than the good ones do positive.

I fully agree with the statement that your no more likely to win your case using a CMC if you look at it simply as having a 3rd party name doesn’t effect the way FOS look at it however its not that simple, a good CMC will help the average consumer structure their argument galvanising it with reference to regulation such as principles/ICOB and this when compared to a very basic argument of 'I want my money back cos I was missold'

We have to remember that the knowledge of the people on forums such as this is not comparable to your average consumer, many i suspect, without wanting to disrespectful, didn’t understand the terms of account/policy in the first place, therefore they are always going to struggle with the relevant legislation and arguments. I often ask our clients to explain in their own words why they felt they were missold and want their money back as part of our fact finds (its much better then asking say 6 basic questionnaire style yes or no options), I'm often met with either silence or "because Martin Lewis on GMTV said everyone is due money back". For a lot of cases, particularly where people have not done the reseach/legwork the people on forums such a LB do, the difference the knowledge of a CMC brings to the table can be the difference between winning or losing, particularly with FOS seemingly taking and increasingly stern stance with 'wishy washy' complaints

For the avoidance of doubt and before I get a 'CMC kicking' I stand by the comments I have made a number of times before, if you are willing to put in the time to educate yourself regarding ppi and structure a proper argument then by all means do it yourself, there is however a place for decent CMC's to operate on behalf of those who cant/wont dig into the matter to structure a proper complaint and follow it through. You have to remember that the banks hire and train entire departments of people to give consumers (and often FOS) the runs around and minimise their liability, the average Joe Bloggs is often ill prepared to take them on.

[nelliewops]

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

Did you request he confirm in writing why the change in stance and what part of the banks response altered his mindset? I think this would not only be interesting (and also useful of others on forum who may yet finds themselves in a similar position) but also handy when you no doubt escalate to ombudsman/complain to the indipendant assessor about the handling of the case.

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your comments

In my letter requesting that the complaint be escalated to an ombudsman I did express my surprise and disappointment that the adjudicator had led me to believe he was upholding my complaint, only to backtrack and reject it. I queried what his reasons for this about-turn might be and he did reply (in writing) addressing my concerns.

He said that he was 'initially minded to uphold' my complaint 'however after further information came in from the bank in response to my letter and further consideration by me of your complaint as a whole, I have come to the conclusion that I am no longer able to recommend upholding your complaint.' He goes on to say 'I do agree that it was perhaps not helpful in giving you an indication of how I was minded to recommend initially. However what is most important in my role is that I am satisfied my recommendation is fair and reasonable to both sides and on this occasion I have been minded to change my initial view.'

The adjudicator also enclosed copies of his correspondence with the bank. His initial letter to them states that he is 'of the opinion that the complaint should succeed.'

The bank's reply to him doesn't include any new evidence as to why my complaint should not succeed, but instead reels off the usual rubbish about how they have acted fairly and reasonably towards me at all times and moreover that had I had any concerns I should have raised these at the time rather than now...........which is hardly likely as the complaint is connected to mis-sold PPI and this only came to light in the last couple of years.

The adjudicator did however state that as he is unable to know for certain what would have occurred in a certain set of circumstances, it is his role to take into account what he believes is most likely to have happened based upon the information available to him.

I am now awaiting the complaint's escalation to an ombudsman.

Nellie x

[leclerc]

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

They have in Ombudsman news got a response to that argument:

"As claims-management companies are responsible for so much of the ombudsman service’s workload, surely they should have to contribute to your costs?

In our annual review published in May, we reported that 45% of the total number of complaints we received last year were brought on behalf of consumers by claims-management companies. In a further 5% of cases, consumers paid for professionals such as lawyers and accountants to bring complaints for them – and in another 5% of cases, complaints were made on behalf of consumers by friends, family and consumer representatives acting for free.

There’s a vast difference in the personal circumstances involved in these cases. And it’s ultimately a matter of individual choice for each consumer whether they want someone else to represent them in bringing their complaint – either to us or, in the first instance, to the financial business concerned. As the rules stand, we can’t charge those who represent consumers. And I can see there could be unintended consequences for consumers, if that were to happen.

However, we’ve always made it very clear that consumers wanting to complain can do it themselves, that we don’t see claims-management companies adding value, and that you’re no more likely to win your case going through a claims company than if you complain directly."

issue 94 - ombudsman focus: lawyering up

[Paul210]

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

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

The case in here is a classic example of a poor CMC and the type who give the rest of the industry a bad name, quite what they hoped to acheive by referring the case to FOS lacking any kind of idea whether the case was valid and despite the lender prooving no ppi is beyond me.

Following on from the discussion yesterday re charging CMC's, this is excatly the kind of case where this should happen, I think there's an argument that where a case is 'frivilous and vexatious' as FOS described and as clear cut as this one was then the CMC should not only be liable for the lenders case fee but also the same value again by way of punitive fine. Lets see if they keep doing it when each false case costs them £1,000.

FOS stated 1% of claims they receive are frivilous and vexatious, based on nearly 105,000 ppi complaints in 10/11 to fos this would bring them an income of just over £1m, whilst hitting the time wasters where it hurts.

[leclerc]

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

[k77mss]

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

hi guys what happened to the rumour that lloyds were going to follow barclays and settle claims that were on hold during jr. wishful thinking for me i have 3 that have been in since 2nd feb with black horse!

[Paul210]

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

Slightly off topic, but regarding the discussions of the FOS and their 'fitness for purpose', my own recent experience (PPI-related, but not an actual a PPI complaint) has been of an adjudicator who verbally informed me that he was recommending the bank uphold my complaint, then went on to reject it after having spoken to the bank in question at a very late stage in the proceedings This to me seemed at best unprofessional and at worst smacked of some collusion between them I have been shown both his letter of recommendation to the bank and their response and can see nothing in their response (other than the usual denial of responsibility) that would have made him change his mind.............FOS definitely are not fit for purpose in my opinion and as The_Big_Dog says they should all be trained to sing from the same hymnsheet!!! Just my 2p

Did you request he confirm in writing why the change in stance and what part of the banks response altered his mindset? I think this would not only be interesting (and also useful of others on forum who may yet finds themselves in a similar position) but also handy when you no doubt escalate to ombudsman/complain to the indipendant assessor about the handling of the case.

[nelliewops]

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

Slightly off topic, but regarding the discussions of the FOS and their 'fitness for purpose', my own recent experience (PPI-related, but not an actual a PPI complaint) has been of an adjudicator who verbally informed me that he was recommending the bank uphold my complaint, then went on to reject it after having spoken to the bank in question at a very late stage in the proceedings This to me seemed at best unprofessional and at worst smacked of some collusion between them I have been shown both his letter of recommendation to the bank and their response and can see nothing in their response (other than the usual denial of responsibility) that would have made him change his mind.............FOS definitely are not fit for purpose in my opinion and as The_Big_Dog says they should all be trained to sing from the same hymnsheet!!! Just my 2p

[pompeyfaith]

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

Not bad that will make it 50 weeks from start to finish !

That is still a reletively short period, many many have been waiting far longer mine took 3 years start to finish.

Regards

[AndyRogers]

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

Weeks are still passing by....funny how you can get excitied about being sent a letter by Lloyds TSB. Shame all it said was that the claim was still being investigated, but on the upside they have until 31st August to reply to me.

Not bad that will make it 50 weeks from start to finish !

[MBD23]

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

Great news!

I haven't been on the Forum for a while. Since the Virgin/MBNA upheld my complaint I have been waiting for a response re my MBNA card proper. I phoned them up a couple of weeks ago and they told me that although they had upheld the Virgin card they would likely respond within 4 weeks re the MBNA card and they were taking into account the "sales channel".

Well today I received a response ...
"I can confirm that I have reviewed your complaint further and unfortunately I do not have sufficient information from you regarding your sale and as such would request that you complete and return to me the enclosed questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed by the Financial Ombudsman Service and will enable me to consider your complaint further"

Now, what to do? Obviously probably fill it in I suppose. But I am wary of falling into any traps. My MBNA card dates back to around 2001 too and all I can recall at that time was that this PPI amount was regulary charged every month and just like in the Virgin case, I did not ask for it. I have some old statements but I am not sure I have documents dating back to when I took out the card hence my predicament in filling out this form correctly without prejudicing myself.

Any guidance would be a help.

Apologies for not keeping up with forum events - slap around the wrists duly noted:tinysmile_grin_t:

thats why people use a cmc , so they dont trip themselves up , and dont think you can simply go to fos, what you put on your questionaire in your initial complaint is not ignored by fos, you cant say one thing to the lender and change your story to fos
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
i mean taking advice over such an important issue from people you dont know and who will take no responsibility for their advice or the outcome or a professional cmc to handle your claim , if you cant do it yourself then its a no brainer
and people going on about cmcs paying a levy, does anyone actually know if any cmcs are making money, has anyone looked up the accounts of any of the big boys such as gladstone brookes and ismart, and what if the jr had been lost or went to appeal, who would be cash flowing all the claims, it would be cmcs at the risk they could end up with nothing whilst still having their obligations to provide a professional service in a compliant way according to the moj