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

[Amethyst]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Anyone heard from Pomps today ? I don't think he made it to the JR.

Maybe he had a lovely day visiting the Queen instead.

[Chip Tuesday]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

not a peep i'm affraid

[Amethyst]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Ahh Chip, you'll know Whats the average amount paid per product for PPI across all products/periods etc ? MSE have it at between £3 and 5k I think but I don't know what thats based on. Some cards you pay £1.50 a month, and some loans £10k up front....

(lol ok you probably don't know and the office of national statistics would struggle working it out but no harm in asking)

[Chip Tuesday]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

I don't know off the top of my head, but a quick google led me to this article on This Is Money. The following stats might answer your question Ame:

According to the research, Natwest, Abbey, the Alliance & Leicester and Northern Rock top the PPI rip-off table. Based on a five-year £10,000 unsecured loan, Natwest customers would pay out an extra £3,267 in PPI– around a third of the total amount of their loan.
Abbey would pay £2,766 over the same period, while A&L customers would pay £2,376. Northern Rock customers would pay a hefty £2,233. Yet amongst the cheapest on the market are standalone insurers British Insurance and Paymentcare. They charged £468 – just 14% of NatWest's PPI charge – and £643 respectively for the same loan over the same period.


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/credit-...#ixzz1C4edNDGr

[Chip Tuesday]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

ps. just so everyone knows, the Jr is set to kick off again at 10:30 tomorrow morning:

COURT 1
Before MR JUSTICE OUSELEY
Wednesday 26 January, 2011
At half past 10
Applications for Permission
PART HEARD
CO/10619/2010 The Queen on the application of British Bankers Association v Financial Services Authority

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_admin.htm

CT

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Greetings All,

Here you all are waiting with baited breath lol anyway I need to apologise as I had one of those days today.

I caught the train got as far as three bridges station then my Brother in law phones me he is a car dealer anyway his truck driver did not turn in and he had a BMW that had to be collected from Ramsgate and asked if I could do it for £150 so as I could not turn that down I had to go back home.

Now my Brother in law has to view another car in battersea tomorrow at 8pm so he is going to drop me of there so I can get a tube into charing cross.

So am still up for tomorrow and £150 better off

Off for an hours kip now as I've not long been back yup that M25 does you in lol

Ill be back in a while give Exc a chance to get home hopefully he will see this

[Angry Cat]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

How astonishing, that non elected judges and judges who are not accountable to the electorate, will end up deciding on a matter (PPI) that will affect so many 'British' people: The Electorate!

[Amethyst]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

I was looking at the commission figures on the 2006 OFT report and even though we know it is insane I was still quite suprised.

average commission rates for single premium PPI policies
vary from 50 per cent of GWP for first charge mortgage PPI to 67 per
cent of GWP for those selling motor finance PPI. The average
commission rate for all single premium PPI policies was 59 per cent.

So of that £3k more than £1500 is going to commission payments.

I do feel quite pleased with myself for never having taken any PPI on anything, though kinda wish I had when I was well off so I could get it back now with some interest lol.

[Chip Tuesday]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

describing the JR as a "ding-dong", classic:

http://www.fool.co.uk/news/investing...for-banks.aspx

CT

[Amethyst]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Oh that's a shame Pompey, hope you make it tmw, get there early if you can as it was extremely busy xxx

[leclerc]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

How astonishing, that non elected judges and judges who are not accountable to the electorate, will end up deciding on a matter (PPI) that will affect so many 'British' people: The Electorate!

Are any UK judges within the judicial system "elected by the electorate"? Should the judiciary be a popularity contest? My vote goes on Mr Blobby for the next judge or maybe we can have "the next top Judge" as a tv contest(who cares about talent or experience!!)

[EXC]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

I’ll try and summarise, as best I can, the main thrust of the arguments put forward by Lord Pannick for the BBA that Amethyst hasn’t already covered.

The BBA is claiming that the principles in the FSA’s policy statement are unfair additions to the ICOB and ICOBS rules that govern the standards of PPI sales.

Although they grudgingly accept that principles are in fact rules and therefore capable of being breached, they argue that the principles are too general and abstract to rely on when there is so much money at stake.

A crucial aspect of the principles - and this appears to be common ground with the FSA - is that unlike the more specific rules in ICOB & ICOBS, the breaching of principles in themselves don’t give rise to a legal liability to compensation from a firm to a customer. In other words an individual could not seek monetary compensation from a court in respect of a breach of the principles alone.

However I believe that this is distinct from the legal liability for breaching principles that firms have with the FSA as the FSA can and has fined firms for breaching principles in isolation.

And because the breaching of principles are incapable of giving risen to a legal liability to a consumer, the BBA is claiming that the FOS should not use the principles as one of the criteria they use in determining complaints and that when they do uphold a complaint, because an FOS compensation award is legally binding, this amounts to a legal liability. Lord Pannick said that the only way that the FSA could legitimately use the principles to confer legal liability was to ask Parliament to change the law.

In support of their argument that breaching principles was never meant to give rise to liability, Lord Pannick referred to the original legislation laid down by Parliament that gave the FSA it’s rule making powers and which appeared to expressly exclude principles from giving rise to consumer liability, and the judge commented that this was ‘’good evidence’’.

The judge then suggested that the FSA & FOS may argue that the principles were only one of the many rules that the FOS take into account when considering the merits of a complaint and as such the principles in themselves may not be responsible for the liability. He also said that notwithstanding the disputed status of the principles, the FOS were principally obliged to judge complaints on the basis of what, in their opinion, is fair and reasonable and that their discretion could be said to override it.

The BBA then went on to argue that the FOS were unaware that breaching principles does not cause liability and that the FOS had a duty to fully understand the legal consequences of the rules it used to judge complaints. In support of this Lord Pannick (rather cleverly I thought) dug out some case law from a judgment that Justice Ousley himself had made in 2002 in a case between the Norwich & Peterborough Building Society and the then Ombudsman, where Justice Ousley had stated that an Ombudsman does indeed have a duty to understand the legal consequences of the rules it uses.

However, I’m not so sure that the FOS didn’t know this and I wouldn’t be surprised if they came up with some evidence proving they did.

The way in which Lord Pannick repeatedly linked the ‘’misuse’’ of the FSA principles to and by the FOS is clearly meant to tie the FOS into the case against the FSA and make it more difficult for the judge to separate the claims against them, and thus circumvent the issue of the case against the FOS being time barred.

Almost nothing was said about the ‘common failings’ in the open letter - which was a major part of the BBA’s initial claim. You may remember that the FSA issued a statement on 24 November saying that the BBA had misinterpreted the common failings as breaches of rules (and not merely examples) and it looks like the FSA’s clarification has worked as the BBA have apparently dropped that part of their case.

On the issue of the policy statement requiring firms to conduct ‘root cause analysis’ (ie re-examine past PPI sales and offer compensation where due - even to customers who hadn’t complained) the BBA contended that the FSA should have sought legal permission from the Treasury under section 404 of the Enterprise Act to do this and that in not doing so, banks didn’t receive the procedural‘’safeguards’’ that sec 404 offered them.

One interesting thing that Pannick said was that if the BBA win the Judicial Review, ‘’what’s done is done’’. I understood this to mean that the BBA didn’t intend to challenge past complaints upheld by the FOS or fines already issued by the FSA in respect of PPI mis-selling by way of breaching principles.

When Lord Pannick had finished giving his submission, the judge summed up the BBA’s case:

‘’This is an ‘occupied field’ test. Having set out specific and detailed rules, the FSA are precluded from setting out guidance in that field - save by an amendment of the specific rules’’.

Looking objectively at the performance of the BBA’s counsel today I’d say that they started off badly but finished better. But really it’s impossible to gauge the strength of their case until we’ve heard the counter arguments from the FSA & FOS tomorrow.

[anaellie]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Thanks for this concise breakdown . Are you going tomorrow . If so i look forward to reading your report . Does it look to you that worst case ,complaints will be dealt with according to IOCBS guidelines. Have many people waiting for this result

[Angry Cat]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

Originally Posted by Angry Cat
How astonishing, that non elected judges and judges who are not accountable to the electorate, will end up deciding on a matter (PPI) that will affect so many 'British' people: The Electorate!

Are any UK judges within the judicial system "elected by the electorate"? Should the judiciary be a popularity contest? My vote goes on Mr Blobby for the next judge or maybe we can have "the next top Judge" as a tv contest(who cares about talent or experience!!)

Potentially, 'Trouble at Mill', then...

[Angry Cat]

Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

In a democracy those who make the laws must be accountable to the electorate. And in a parliamentary democracy Parliament must have the power to set the parameters within which judges apply the law. MPs legislate on the basis of what they consider to be in the public interest, they are accountable for their decisions and from time to time are replaced. Judges, on the other hand, may have a partial view of the public interest.

Let us hope on this occasion, the judges take a FULL view of the 'Public Interest' in this particular matter: the mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI)!