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

[The_Big_Dog]

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

The animosity towards CMCs by the FOS is hardly surprising and in my view not unreasonable.

The Financial Ombudsman scheme is a public service that provides redress to consumers. It was not designed as a free resource to award profits to opportunist businesses.

True - however for a poster with the reputation and intelligence that you have EXC, I'm suprised with the comment you've made.

Whichever way you look at it, CMC's act on behalf of members of the public - who are entitled to redress as they've been unlawfully deprived of money. You may call me opportunist, but isn't that true of any business where you have the natural laws of supply and demand at work?

Lets get to the nitty gritty here, which I why I'm a big advocate of consumer noticeboards - everyone who has done this themselves, irrespective of how easy they found the process, deserves a huge pat on the back - because they've done something that the vast majority of the population wouldn't do - and thats take the bull by the horns and take on their bank on their own. It takes a special type of person to do that - and we're all totally different to each other and what I'd find easy could well terrify someone else. I represent people who don't want to do it themselves, for whatever reason ot haven't got the time to do so.

If you have got the mindset to go to war with your bank, then this website and others like it, are ideal, but, and it's a big BUT, a lot of people, irrespective of how much help they receive, don't want to know and want to detatch themselves from the process - which is where I come in.

Now we could have a completely different conversation about CMC's who charge upfront, give their customers a lousy service, charge a ridiculous rate for their services, don't play fair etc because I'd agree with you a 100% - there are cowboys out there and the quicker the MoJ forget all about their fees for the year and how they're going to survive without them coming in the door the better - I would prefer they weed out the cowboys and the sharks so the rest of us can offer a good service to clients, and stand along side consumer websites side by side so consumers can make an informed choice - either do it yourself and if you win get 100% of the redress, or use someone like the big dog and get 80% of the redress, however, for the 20% you pay TBD he'll take the paperwork and headache away and you won't have to fire the bullets.

TBD

[The_Big_Dog]

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

Most of the above was covered in Yates v Nemo wasn't it?

Some of it was - yes. I've never really made my thoughts public on Yates & Harrison and the differences between the 2, but there's a first for everything.
Now, I'm happy to accept the fact that Harrison was HHJ Waksman's affirmation that the original County Court Judge, DJ Marston's initial Judgment was correct - however, what's really bugged me since I read the Judgment is how much HHJ Waksman has gone against another very important Judgment, which is Wilson & another v Hurstanger.
In Hurstanger, there was a broker involved, and the House of Lords considered the implications of a secret commission paid. The original County Court Judge dismissed the point as irrelevant, however, the Law Lords had an entirely different view and they stated that it was a bribe and that it would represent a fraud. Rewind to HHJ Waksman's verdict and he found that there was nothing wrong with the lender receiving a commission for the sale of the PPI policy and that ICOB does not have to take into account a policy which was 'expensive'. Very importantly, HHJ Waksman ruled that there was no evidence that Mr. & Mrs. Harrison would have done anything different had they known that the commission was 87%. With the utmost respect, I think he's wrong, because if I was buying something, if it was disclosed to me that 87% of the price was pure profit, then I'd be shopping elsewhere - which also has more than a whiff of the Competition Commission's report into the PPI market about it.
HHJ Waksman is famous (or infamous - dependent on which side of the fence you're sitting on), for the Harrison ruling and Carey v HSBC and other cases, which involved our old friends Cartel. Again, he went against Hurstanger, just to remind everyone, LJ Tuckey stated the following in the Hurstanger Judgment when he came to discussing Prescribed Terms under the CCA:

Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by schedule 6, but some does not. Contrasting the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said:

33. In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1.
The underlining is mine - HHJ Waksman in Carey v HSBC stated that the Prescribed Terms could be contained in another document - another nail in the coffin of the Consumer's rights.

Coming on to Yates, I believe that HHJ Platts was spot on in his Judgment, and, like HHJ Ouseley in the recent BBA JR, he smelt a rat - saw through the smoke and mirrors, and went with Yates & Lorenzelli. He also, by and large, went with the Hurstanger ruling on undisclosed commissions. Admittedly, there was a case of mis-representation in Yates as the broker was receiving a commission in the sale and it was stated that they had to have the insurance in order to get the loan.

A lot has been said on both cases that there was a broker involved in Yates and an employee involved in Harrison, however, in my eyes, the question that was not asked (and I think should have been), was what monetary gain did the employee of Black Horse receive on the sale of the policy? If there was a payment to the adviser, then the adviser was equally as culpable as the broker in Yates in selling the policy for financial gain and both cases should have been viewed in the same light.

TBD.

[mosten]

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

Spoke to my cousin again today and he said that at the CMC he works for, they are slowly starting to see some movement on offers... even had hsbc loan and credit card come through which he couldn't believe...

Hopefully sign of things to come then,,,

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

Most of the above was covered in Yates v Nemo wasn't it?

[The_Big_Dog]

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

TBD, what are your opinions on Lloyds cases because they specifically print out a "recommendations" sheet as part of the loan paperwork(the face to face ones). My opinion is that it would constitute advice for effectively a non advised sale.

I'd agree Leclerc, because it boils down to the same issues as the FSA's open letter. To be fair, it's very hard to give a general view because each case is different and each case has it's own individual set of circumstances and it'd dependent on what exactly was put in black and white to the client at the point of sale as well as any oral disclosure the lender made during a face to face meeting. It's already been decided that if the advice is given on a face to face basis, then all information has to be given in that medium and half oral disclosure and the other half buried in the small print of the policy is not good enough.
As I stated in the previous post that the FSA had concerns over advised and non-advised sales. The full wording of their concerns are:

The firm did not explain whether it was selling on an advised or non advised basis.
Where seeking to sell on a non-advised basis, the firm:
•
failed to make it clear it was only providing information on the policy; or
•
gave advice to the customer regarding the policy (e.g. expressed an opinion on the merits of the policy).

Now the FSA have gone further than this in the Open Letter, because they also stated the following:

The firm did not take reasonable steps to ensure the customer only bought a policy for which he was eligible.

This ties in quite nicely with GISC regulations as well, because under GISC, the intermediary was bound to ensure that the policy would be suitable to the borrower in as far as possible it is to ascertain.

So, if you're self employed, the lender cannot deny they were unaware of the fact - it would have been clearly disclosed during the loan application. I believe that they would then have an issue, taking the above into account, that they sold the policy on a non-advised basis so it was down to the client to ensure it was suitable for his or her needs because they were fully aware that they were selling a policy which would have limited benefits to the client and din't give a warning to this fact.

The FSA have also addressed this in their Open Letter as well:

The firm sold a customer a policy comprising one or more parts under which he was not eligible to claim, without having first:
•
taken reasonable steps to ensure the customer only bought a policy under which he was eligible to claim benefits; or
•
disclosed to the customer, in good time before the sale was concluded and in a way that was clear, fair and not misleading, that parts of the cover did not apply.
And in face to face and telephone sales, where the sale was primarily conducted orally, the firm failed to do this orally.

I'd accept that if the lender pulled out a document, which was clearly signed BY THE CLIENT that he/she understood the exclusions before the point of sale, they might have a defence, but one which could be countered with 'well. you certainly didn't treat the customer fairly selling a policy with limitations on it which the customer could never claim on'.

Hope this helps,

TBD.

[leclerc]

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

TBD, what are your opinions on Lloyds cases because they specifically print out a "recommendations" sheet as part of the loan paperwork(the face to face ones). My opinion is that it would constitute advice for effectively a non advised sale.

[The_Big_Dog]

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

That is a good result Bernie a cool £9500 well done, ive just fired off another complaint letter to Barclaycard so i'll just sit back and see what happens next. As you say for the cost of a stamp its worth causing them some hassle again.

If you haven't sent it yet, hold on to it for a second because I don't think that submitting a new complaint will help you too much with your case - I think you're better off following up your original complaint that you made. By submitting a new case in there, you're giving them the golden opportunity to simply turn around and say 'we've given you your final response, therefore, you can now go to the FOS. The 'no quibble' refund isn't going to help you either, because they are only doing that on cases up to and including the 20th of April.
Barclaycard have defended a lot of claims during the Judicial Review on the basis of a tickbox being ticked and generally stating you signed tough luck etc, however, they're only giving you half the story and are trying to get rid of you as quickly as possible.
It is completely irrespective what box you ticked - many people do tick boxes on credit card applications, however, the rule is that the information presented to must have been given in a 'Clear, Fair and Not-Misleading' manner and you would have had to have been in possession of the true facts prior to ticking the tickbox and you understood the true nature of the contract that you were entering into - I'd argue that you weren't, because if you were, why did you purchase the policy knowing there was onerous terms in the small print of the policy for self employed applicants.
You've got 2 chances if you follow up your original complaint of getting a result. Firstly, Barclaycard are currently making a decision whether to re-visit all the complaints that they've denied during the JR. Their Legal Department stated to us yesterday that they hope to make a decision within the next 14 days. I've made representations to them already because I feel that they've acted unfairly in issuing Final Responses during the JR especially as their decisions don't comply with the rules of PS10/12, nor do they address the FSA Open Letter failings (I think it's obvious Barclaycard thought that they wouldn't lose the JR). Your FR was dated 4th April - so they issued it prior to the Judgment being handed down. If Barclaycard do revisit these complaints, then you're going to be ok.
However, I wouldn't wait for them to make a decision here, I'd be going straight for them and I'd also cover them in treacle when I was at it and appeal for fairness.
I would write back at this point, and state to them, many thanks for your FR etc. etc., which I have now had the opportunity of reviewing. I've noted your comments about the tick that I placed on the application form and that you feel that the advice was given in a non-advisory capacity. (As a side issue, if you signed in 2005, as long as it was the 14th of January or after - then ICOB would be in play. What was the exact wording on the application form? If it says anything like we advise, or we'd recommend etc - they're making an advised sale and it would have to be goverened by ICOB rules - this also falls under the FSA Open Letter - not making it clear whether it was an advised sale or not - see below).

'The firm did not explain whether it was selling on an advised or non advised basis.
Where seeking to sell on a non-advised basis, the firm:

• gave advice to the customer regarding the policy (e.g. expressed an opinion on the merits of the policy).

Point out to them that you were completely unaware of the onerous conditions in the small print of the policy for the self employed and had you been aware of them, you would not have purchased the policy in the first place. Also point out to them that the fact that you were self employed is clearly evidenced in the application form and that you also feel that they should have at least alerted you to the fact that the policy may not have been suitable for your circumstances at the time of the sale - they didn't do it. Also point out to them under their conditions, they would only pay for unemployment cover for the self employed if you were in bankruptcy, which isn't a lot of good to you, because as it's an unsecured debt, the bankruptcy would take care of the balance of the card in any event, therefore, the policy is worthless for your circumstances.
Finish it off by stating even though they have issued a final response you feel that they haven't treated you fairly and you have a very legitimate complaint, one you feel that you will win if you went to the FOS with. I'd also ask them, in the spirit of their offer made to their customers, that they also uphold your complaint as a gesture of goodwill the same as all other complaints that they have received and that they treat your complaint in the same way.

I think they might crack and make you an offer.

TBD.

[debtisbad]

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

Good morning all,

I have been reading this forum over the last 6 months with great interest.

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black]In November last year I submitted a complaint to MBNA for mis-sold PPI on a credit card which I had for around 6 years from about 2001. It was an AOL branded card and the application was at the time completed online (from memory).
For the cost of a few stamps its worth being persistent and dont let the buggers get you down!

Great result! I had a similar sort of run around with MBNA about an Abbey card (MBNA took over Abbey cards). Same thing, letters saying I could not claim and that I could not go to the regulator, etc. I did go to them and eventually got paid out all PPI premiums, plus interest at 8%, plus compensation. As always, persistence is the key. Too many people allow themselves to be fobbed off.

[whatnest]

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

That is a good result Bernie a cool £9500 well done, ive just fired off another complaint letter to Barclaycard so i'll just sit back and see what happens next. As you say for the cost of a stamp its worth causing them some hassle again.

[BernieButler]

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

Good morning all,

I have been reading this forum over the last 6 months with great interest.

In November last year I submitted a complaint to MBNA for mis-sold PPI on a credit card which I had for around 6 years from about 2001. It was an AOL branded card and the application was at the time completed online (from memory). I got several letters between November and February apologising for the delay and then I received a letter in late February saying that my complaint was affected by the judicial and as a result I would have to wait on the outcome although I was entitled to complain to the FOS (Which I did). I have received several generic letters from the FOS saying how busy they are and they will look at my complaint as soon as possible.

So, last week I sent another letter to the customer advocate office at MBNA asking them to re-visit my complaint, Monday morning I received a letter upholding by complaint, repaying the PPI payments, associated interested and the statutory 8% interest, over £9500 in total! They have said they will send out a cheque within 28 days...lets wait and see but it looks alright to me

It has been a long wait since November but it has only cost MBNA more money in interest by delaying, I couldn't have possibly earnt 8% in my bank account!

For the cost of a few stamps its worth being persistent and dont let the buggers get you down!

[whatnest]

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

My complaint was sent in 2nd March 2011 and they issued final response 4th April.

I did tick a PPI box on the original application 2005, and then posted it back to them.

I am self employed, when i started to get behind with payments tried to claim, but told i was not covered and soon after that they cancelled the policy.

[The_Big_Dog]

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

No quibble !!! they sent me a get lost type of 'Final response'. They didnt make reference to 'on hold' or JR. I'm tempted to send in another complaint (re: No quibble) to Barclaycard again and see what comes back ??
I used the same arguments (mainly self employed -no chance of claiming etc ,etc,) with Barclaycard as i did with NW and HSBC , they both paid out straight away ..

When did you originally send in the complaint, and when did they issue their Final Resonse? Barclaycard have grown a big pair recently - did they defend on the basis you signed a tickbox?

[whatnest]

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

No quibble !!! they sent me a get lost type of 'Final response'. They didnt make reference to 'on hold' or JR. I'm tempted to send in another complaint (re: No quibble) to Barclaycard again and see what comes back ??
I used the same arguments (mainly self employed -no chance of claiming etc ,etc,) with Barclaycard as i did with NW and HSBC , they both paid out straight away ..

[The_Big_Dog]

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

I've just had an FOS reply to my Barclaycard PPI recliam, they say they are rather busy now and it could take up to a year to process my complaint !!!

Before you sink into a bottomless pit of despair!

When did you submit the claim to Barclaycard and did they issue an 'on hold' JR letter? If they did, then you're going to be one of the lucky ones who are going to get paid out under their 'no quibble' refund policy, as long as you put in a legitimate complaint.

TBD.

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

I've just had an FOS reply to my Barclaycard PPI recliam, they say they are rather busy now and it could take up to a year to process my complaint !!!

yeah and in 12 months' time you'll get your bundle of papers returned by 'em with a standard letter asking you to get in touch after you get a Final Response from some third party who sold you the PPI you've never heard of.