• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

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

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    Originally posted by EXC View Post
    I’ll try and summarise, as best I can.....
    Thanks so much for this very insightful report EXC, it's really useful. It's interesting to know that the BBA have seeminigly dropped the "common failings" argument, they really were barking up the wrong tree with that one!

    If the BBA were so worried about the FSA's Principle-base regulation why didn't they bring a JR earlier? It seems to me that although the new PS10/12 has introduced new evidential provisions, the Principles are not altered but this. Why then is the BBA crying over the Principles?! This annoys me!! Also I hope that the "good evidence" praise won't get in the way of the judge holistically assessing the damage a ruling in favour of the BBA could make.

    Is the reference to s404 of the Enterprise Act is confusing me a little. The Enterprise Act 2002 only has numbered sections up to s281, then Schedules 1-26. Are you sure it wasn't a reference to s404 of the FSMA 2000?

    It's very cheeky that the BBA have linked the Principles to the FOS in such a way, I would still like to see the FOS arm of their argument thrown ou though.

    CT
    ------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
    Interesting FT article on the JR:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/25fa9302-2...#axzz1C8RkOreF


    Lord Pannick QC, representing the BBA, told the High Court that the issues involved in this judicial review were “very substantial indeed” affecting “hundreds of thousands of consumers” and “hundreds of firms”.
    He told the court that, according to the FSA’s own figures, the industry would have to pay between £800m and £1.3bn over five years for the cost of handling complaints about PPI.
    In addition, the total cost to the industry of the wider package of measures would be between £1.1bn and £3.2bn, he told the court, assuming that 20 per cent of consumers complained they were mis-sold the policies.
    He also told the court that the FSA had said the proposals would lead to 35 insurance intermediaries failing at a cost of £35m to the industry’s compensation scheme.
    Lord Pannick said there had been an “error in law” by the FSA which “we believe imposes on firms an obligation more onerous than that set out in the conduct of business rules”.
    Last edited by Chip Tuesday; 26th January 2011, 10:19:AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Chip Tuesday View Post
      Is the reference to s404 of the Enterprise Act is confusing me a little. The Enterprise Act 2002 only has numbered sections up to s281, then Schedules 1-26. Are you sure it wasn't a reference to s404 of the FSMA 2000?

      Sorry I think it's the Financial Services and Markets Act and I think I'm right in saying that an amendment was made to s4o4 very recently which actually makes it easier for the FSA to obtain an order under it.

      Yes the principles issue is a very real threat to the entire principles based regulation that the FSA uses throughout financial services regulation and for that reason it raises the stakes well beyond this case alone.

      Judgment won't be Friday as it'll have to be considered and written and probably handed down at a hearing. Judges usually write judgments on the days they're not sitting in hearings so it's worth keeping an eye on the Administrative Court listings to see how busy Justice Ousley is over the coming weeks, and also a 'For Judgment' hearing listing http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_admin.htm
      Last edited by EXC; 26th January 2011, 10:47:AM.

      Comment


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

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ples-peer.html

        Clearly Lord Pannick, is not the people's peer, after all...more a case of, who pays the piper!

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Angry Cat View Post
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ples-peer.html

          Clearly Lord Pannick, is not the people's peer, after all...more a case of, who pays the piper!
          Were you thinking that the BBA were on legal aid? They don't qualify as far as I am aware.
          Are they on legal aid?
          "Family means that no one gets forgotten or left behind"
          (quote from David Ogden Stiers)

          Comment


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

            I would add that Monica Carss-Frisk is from the same chambers as Lord Pannick so does that mean we can start the conspiracy theories before the hearing is over now?

            I reckon it was a stitch up before the hearing with all the funny handshakes
            ------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
            Michael Fordham for Nemo is also from Blackstone Chambers so the conspiracy is complete
            Last edited by leclerc; 26th January 2011, 11:26:AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
            "Family means that no one gets forgotten or left behind"
            (quote from David Ogden Stiers)

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by leclerc View Post
              I reckon it was a stitch up before the hearing with all the funny handshakes
              You're bang on the money there buster

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Amethyst View Post
                Tbh I have no idea, I suppose it depends how the letter is worded...the 20% is the figure the FSA came up with, BBA said it would be much higher but couldnt substantiate.

                I think standard mailshots have a 1-2% response rate don't they, so 20% is a big leap from that - but then it is offering you money. I'll see if I can find where the figure comes from - there are probably comparable previous issues - such as endowment misselling where a pro-active approach was taken.
                To provide a bit more info that (hopefully) helps, Alliance & Leicester did a mailshot to ppi customers between certain dates following their miselling fine in '07. It wouldn't surprise me if FSA monitored response as part of ongoing review and used this to make 20% uptake estimate. Other companies have tried a proactive approach, Welcome finance (although not part of larger BBA issue) have recently set up a proactvie department contacting clients and offering refunds where no complaint has been submitted, not sure if these offers are using the full FOS calculation or are reduced offers to settle early.

                Also saw posts asking for across the board figures for ppi reclaims, estimates on websites and from CMC's inparticular vary but over 100 recent offers I've seen it averages out at just over £1,100 (£1,100.90 to be exact) refund to client (this includes a mixture of creditcard and loan ppi)

                Comment


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

                  Thats fantastic info, thanks Paul £1100 is a lot nearer the mark in my mind than the £3 to £5k being bandied about. So say an average payout of £1100 over 74 million customers ..... (where's my calculator?) ....
                  #staysafestayhome

                  Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

                  Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Amethyst View Post
                    Thats fantastic info, thanks Paul £1100 is a lot nearer the mark in my mind than the £3 to £5k being bandied about. So say an average payout of £1100 over 74 million customers ..... (where's my calculator?) ....
                    What kind of computer/laptop do you have?

                    It's under applications or it's also in your mobile phone or you could use pen and paper....
                    "Family means that no one gets forgotten or left behind"
                    (quote from David Ogden Stiers)

                    Comment


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

                      Or you could work it out for me ! how many 0's in a million again ?
                      #staysafestayhome

                      Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

                      Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Amethyst View Post
                        Or you could work it out for me ! how many 0's in a million again ?
                        6 big fat round ones!

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Chip Tuesday View Post
                          6 big fat round ones!
                          Should need way more 0's than that, I figure £81.4bn (the bankers may have to forgoe some bonus' lol..)

                          Comment


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

                            Blimey and the banks are moaning about it maybe costing £4.5bn - think they are getting off lightly, at 20% its £16.3bn though now I seem to support their argument it will cost more than the FSA are saying.

                            Anyway, should get an idea how things are going today sometime in the next half hour.
                            #staysafestayhome

                            Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

                            Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

                            Comment


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

                              Looking forward to todays update

                              Just wondering if you guys have had any thoughts about the BBA's arguments yesterday? It seems bizarre to me that the banks effectively tried to argue that "The level of misselling was higher than you thought, so we should be let off". This makes absolutely no sense to me, can someone explain to me if I've got the wrong end of the stick or if there is some legal sense in saying a large amont of finanacial liability should reduce the amount of material liability?

                              CT

                              Comment


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

                                I think its more they are illustrating the impact it will have on them if the FSA are allowed to keep these ''rules'' in place, the bank charges barristers did similar and pointed out how much it would affect the banks, I don't think it has any bearing on the decision but it demonstrates to the court that it is an extremely important issue. I presume, as a lot of this is to ensure the FSA don't impose new rules retrospectively in future on other issues/products (if that is indeed what they are found to be trying to do), it is to demonstrate the importance of getting this decision right.

                                I assume also that the FSA would play down the impact for similar but reverse reasons.

                                But thats just my opinion and not based on any thing specific.
                                #staysafestayhome

                                Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

                                Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

                                Comment

                                View our Terms and Conditions

                                LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                                If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                                If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                                Working...
                                X