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

[Chip Tuesday]

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

OTR?

[Amethyst]

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

lol, think she meant Tom...but unfortunately he couldnt get in this morning and had an appt this afternoon so only caught the end bit

OTR (over the road) = CAG

[leclerc]

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

OTR?

yes Over The Road aka CAG or those idiots that keep banning most of us, pmsl!!! Not that most of us care anymore

[Chip Tuesday]

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

ahhhh, fair doos. Any idea if a reserved judgement means that the judge will require more court time?

CT

[Paul210]

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

ahhhh, fair doos. Any idea if a reserved judgement means that the judge will require more court time?

CT

Shouldnt be more court time, Judge will consider the arguments heard, probably review any notes he made during hearing as no doubt both sides counsel threw tons of precedent and info at him. He'll then make decision once fully considered in light of day. - is usaual in proceedings like this, especially complex ones!!

[leclerc]

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

Whoever has Lizzie on their twitter feed, for god's sake ask her over here cos we could teach her about FSMA s.404 and she's asking about it now.

[Chip Tuesday]

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

invite sent!
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
does anyone know if the judge put a timeframe on when he'd deliver the judgement by? In the recent Keydata case the prosiding judge gave a two week timeframe in which he would issue his judgement

CT

[Chip Tuesday]

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

http://billscotts.com/blog/banking-i...ms/2011/01/28/

[leclerc]

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

"FSA’s rules allowed these cases to be put on hold until the case was over. There also been no application for a waiver similar to the official hold on cases put in place during the past legal arguments over unauthorized bank charges. However, this move is likely to add an extra element to the dispute, with the FSA praoclaiming that firms will be expected to continue handling ppi claims and other complaints while this process is ongoing. Also, complainants would still be eligible to take their cases to the Financial Ombudsman Office if the bank has not dealt with it within eight weeks of the initial complaint, even if the case is on hold."

The bit in bold makes no sense. The FSA allows a hold yet it's not an official hold. That is complete and utter nonsense, imho.

[leclerc]

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

Just gonna throw another article into the mix which was written prior to the start of the proceedings
FTAdviser.com - Challenging times

[righty]

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

Just gonna throw another article into the mix which was written prior to the start of the proceedings
FTAdviser.com - Challenging times

The assmption by regulator AND the executive has always been that the banks could be trusted to act fairly & now we know to our cost this to be untrue hence that regulation has had to be forced upon them by the FSA after the fact. In other words you trust someone to act fairly & they betray that trust you punsih them hence the retrospective approach.

The banks could have avoided this by NOT mis-selling their products in the 1st place & I hope the court is made to realize this amongst all of the mumbo jumbo that will be expressed by the BBA

[pompeyfaith]

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

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

404 Schemes for reviewing past business.E+W+S+N.I.

(1)Subsection (2) applies if the Treasury are satisfied that there is evidence suggesting—

(a)that there has been a widespread or regular failure on the part of authorised persons to comply with rules relating to a particular kind of activity; and

(b)that, as a result, private persons have suffered (or will suffer) loss in respect of which authorised persons are (or will be) liable to make payments (“compensation payments”).

(2)The Treasury may by order (“a scheme order”) authorise the Authority to establish and operate a scheme for—

(a)determining the nature and extent of the failure;

(b)establishing the liability of authorised persons to make compensation payments; and

(c)determining the amounts payable by way of compensation payments.

(3)An authorised scheme must be made so as to comply with specified requirements.

(4)A scheme order may be made only if—

(a)the Authority has given the Treasury a report about the alleged failure and asked them to make a scheme order;

(b)the report contains details of the scheme which the Authority propose to make; and

(c)the Treasury are satisfied that the proposed scheme is an appropriate way of dealing with the failure.

(5)A scheme order may provide for specified provisions of or made under this Act to apply in relation to any provision of, or determination made under, the resulting authorised scheme subject to such modifications (if any) as may be specified.

(6)For the purposes of this Act, failure on the part of an authorised person to comply with any provision of an authorised scheme is to be treated (subject to any provision made by the scheme order concerned) as a failure on his part to comply with rules.

(7)The Treasury may prescribe circumstances in which loss suffered by a person (“A”) acting in a fiduciary or other prescribed capacity is to be treated, for the purposes of an authorised scheme, as suffered by a private person in relation to whom A was acting in that capacity.

(8)This section applies whenever the failure in question occurred.

(9)“Authorised scheme” means a scheme authorised by a scheme order.

(10)“Private person” has such meaning as may be prescribed.

(11)“Specified” means specified in a scheme order.

http://twitter.com/#!/Lizzi2611

[pompeyfaith]

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

2.—(1) In these Regulations


average consumer” shall be construed in accordance with paragraphs (2) to (6);

(2) In determining the effect of a commercial practice on the average consumer where the practice reaches or is addressed to a consumer or consumers account shall be taken of the material characteristics of such an average consumer including his being reasonably well informed, reasonably observant and circumspect.

(3) Paragraphs (4) and (5) set out the circumstances in which a reference to the average consumer shall be read as in addition referring to the average member of a particular group of consumers.

(4) In determining the effect of a commercial practice on the average consumer where the practice is directed to a particular group of consumers, a reference to the average consumer shall be read as referring to the average member of that group.

(5) In determining the effect of a commercial practice on the average consumer—

(a)where a clearly identifiable group of consumers is particularly vulnerable to the practice or the underlying product because of their mental or physical infirmity, age or credulity in a way which the trader could reasonably be expected to foresee, and

(b)where the practice is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour only of that group,

a reference to the average consumer shall be read as referring to the average member of that group.

(6) Paragraph (5) is without prejudice to the common and legitimate advertising practice of making exaggerated statements which are not meant to be taken literally.

So my friends going by that above which the judge was referring to I'd say we have been royally ripped off and the amount of claims that have already been paid out speaks volumes because lets be honest here had the financial organisations been adamant that they have done no wrong they would not have paid out [simples] and would have gone to court a lot sooner.

[pompeyfaith]

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

On Tuesday January 25th the judicial review, brought by The British Bankers’ Association against the Financial Services Authority, began at the High Court before Mr Justice Ouseley The BBA is seeking to stop the FSA applying new regulations which would force lenders to review millions of payment protection insurance (PPI) sales.
David Pannick QC spent the first day of the hearing before Judge Crousley putting forward the case for the BBA. He was followed by Charles Flint QC (also BBA).When asked why the BBA hadn’t objected before now to the principles in the FSA policy statement, which had been in use since 2001, he was unable to answer.

Looking good for our BBA friends lol

[pompeyfaith]

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

The BBA lol