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

[leclerc]

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

The rumour Di, if my post stayed up on that site is simply that. The first bit about the FSA is based on their open letter to the PPI providers(so not particularly difficult to add 1 and 1 and get 4 ).

The other bit I can't find a source for and I have looked for the rumour mill in the usual places.

[george]

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

Hi All

I just wanted to say thankyou for the information provided by you all over recent months. I do own a cmc company - and due to the bad press we sometimes get have been reluctant to post as I have not wanted my comments to be misunderstood in any way. We do not charge up front fees and I feel give a good and fair service to our clients.

That said you guys have really helped me to get information over recent months and as I have been at the JR all week I feel it is only fair to share what I feel I have observed. Please just be aware these are my thoughts so if anyone disagrees I can only apologise.

OK here goes:-


The BBA seemed to centre their case on a couple of points:-

• It is an error of law for FSA to rule that principles give rise to redress ( and therefore for FoS to rely on these principles when looking at complaints)
• It is an error of law for the FSA to not go for treasury approval when asking lenders to offer automatic redress under FSMA

There was much barter backwards and forwards on:-

• Are principles actually rules or not etc
• Are principles actually givinng rise to a complaint. As a complaint can mean many forms of redress the principle is not giving right to redress but the complaint is. (or if the complaint is referred to the FoS the FoS is)
• Was CP 10 in fact new rules or a clarification of exisiting rules and lenders were simply not acting fairly and ignoring ICOB/(s).

It was clear the BBA were not challenging rule breaches in themselves. They accepted they had a problem and as long as a clearly defined ICOB/(s) or GISC rule was broken they could understand the complaint. It seemed to me they do not like mainly the automiatic application of rules to non complainants and full reviews of their book. (That is my interpretation only)

The really interesting part for me was when FoS spoke Thursday afternoon. They stated of 100 000 complaints ruled on in the last two years not one had been upheld due to principles alone. All had been upheld based on rules - they closely linked ICOB /(s) 2 and Principle 7 at this point. What was interesting is that on Friday none of the BBA's guys challenged FoS's appraisal - in fact one even went so far to say - 'we do not challenge the FoS figures quoted - we do not even challenge those complaints upheld by rules - we are challenging the more complicated complaints' . Which again in my opinion proves the banks are putting complaints on hold which should not be and are using this as an excuse.

The BBA then focused on treasury review for a large part of their summing up Friday which again in my opinion says they are looking at stopping the need for them to redress non complainants.

For our part we are seeing offers from all lenders now but that may be because we have always worked on sensible claims and not those which do not show a rule breach. For any lender who is now putting our claims on hold we are asking why and then sending all correspondance to FoS and the FSA.

I hope this helps and as I said this is just my interpretaion of the last few days.

[pompeyfaith]

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

George,

Welcome to LB and thank you for your observations at the JR it really is much appriciated.

For the record personally I have nothing against CMC's that do not charge upfront fees indeed there is a place for CMC's as a lot of consumers do not have the inclination of where to start or indeed do not have the time to do it themselves.

Providing CMC'S are fair and work within the TCF they have a role to play.

Regards

[Angry Cat]

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

Personally, I have never had faith in the FOS.

And the Bank's run rings around the FSA, the so called: 'Regulator'.

[MBD23]

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

The BBA then focused on treasury review for a large part of their summing up Friday which again in my opinion says they are looking at stopping the need for them to redress non complainants.

we are also a cmc who does not charge up front fees. that has got to be good for cmc's as if the banks had to redress non complainants they would have to contact them all directly and cmc's would be finished?

[pompeyfaith]

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

we are also a cmc who does not charge up front fees. that has got to be good for cmc's as if the banks had to redress non complainants they would have to contact them all directly and cmc's would be finished?

Thanks for as it explains your reasoning in your previous post.

One CMC to avoid me thinks

[MBD23]

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

why is that, we charge no up front fees and only charge if we win the client money, we have staff and work hard, whats your problem with us being paid? off course like any business we would not want to be wiped out, dont begrudge us of that please, the people who work here have wifes and kids who depend on their job and also work very hard on winning people back money

[pompeyfaith]

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

why is that, we charge no up front fees and only charge if we win the client money, we have staff and work hard, whats your problem with us being paid? off course like any business we would not want to be wiped out, dont begrudge us of that please, the people who work here have wifes and kids who depend on their job and also work very hard on winning people back money

Not disputing any of that as I said in georges post above, but your previous post about s69 stat interest which I invited you to comment on is far from the truth and I hope that is not what you tell your clients.

As you are well aware the CMC market has got a bad name for its self and really needs to pull out all the stops to repair that damage.

[pompeyfaith]

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

I will state again s69 stat interest is payable on all claims whether it is a credit card or a loan the whole reason for paying this is because it is compensation for being deprived of you funds over a period of time.

This is also additional to any interest you have paid on the loan or credit card and should be paid at the rate you were charged.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
MD are you an employee of this CMC or are you the company owner?

[george]

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

With regard to the stat interest question we should in the best interest for our clients be requesting this on all claims irrespective of the type of product. Historically some lenders have offered without including stat interest by stating they are not accepting liability but to bring the matter to a close they will offer refund of premiums and interest paid but not stat interest. As this is often their final response and to decline it would mean to go into the FoS queue (sometimes for up to two years) we discuss the offer with the client. If they wish to accept then we do, if not we carry on down the FoS route. As I said in my first post we operate in the best interest of those we represent not ourselves.

With regard to the redress question I think if the BBA loose then the lenders will write to invite their customers to seek a redress - the take up rate quoted during the case for this is only 20% as many clients will still wish for someone to act on their behalf/ not understand the process etc. (my guess is the letter from the lender will not be too clear!)

I take the point of md re CMC's employing staff etc but to be honest that is our choice and risk when we choose to set up a cmc company. Personally I think this whole process will fish out those companies who are not stable, or built on solid foundations and see this as a quick buck to make. I don't think that is a bad thing for our industry as there are some good CMC's out there who really wish to build a long term win win relationship with their clients. I think my business offers value for money and so charge for our services.

In my opinion what is key here is that the lenders are simply using all of the process as an excuse. The FSCS have told us this week that FP (part of the Barclaycard group) are refusing to send them information for them to settle claims until the JR is over! We request a full DSAR however the FSCS have to speak to the lender as they offer compensation which is not always in line with the normal redress received.

Lenders are ignoring the ombudman at adjuticator level and are forcing claims to go to an ombudsman which in specific cases we have have now added 18 months onto the claims.

We even have some brokers now phoning clients scaring them by confusing them with our detailed letter of claim and telling them they could be accused of fraud. They use this to get the client to cancel the claim and then writing to us to accuse us of making up claims! We have a copy of our client questionnaire signed etc so we know this is not the case however it shows what depths these companies will sink to to not have to repay.

On a positive note we are now receiving offers on claims which have previously gone on hold (so I must question why were they on hold in the first place). Interestingly though some claims put on hold where we have gone to the FoS we have received offers within 28 days so it seems the lenders are rolling over.

All we can to is keep chipping away for our clients - keep referring to both the FoS and FSA on all breaches of process. We are also starting to ask our clients to write to their local MP on this matter and ask for their views/ support.

Hope this helps.

[Amethyst]

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

Hi All

I just wanted to say thankyou for the information provided by you all over recent months. I do own a cmc company - and due to the bad press we sometimes get have been reluctant to post as I have not wanted my comments to be misunderstood in any way. We do not charge up front fees and I feel give a good and fair service to our clients.

That said you guys have really helped me to get information over recent months and as I have been at the JR all week I feel it is only fair to share what I feel I have observed. Please just be aware these are my thoughts so if anyone disagrees I can only apologise.

OK here goes:-


The BBA seemed to centre their case on a couple of points:-

• It is an error of law for FSA to rule that principles give rise to redress ( and therefore for FoS to rely on these principles when looking at complaints)
• It is an error of law for the FSA to not go for treasury approval when asking lenders to offer automatic redress under FSMA

There was much barter backwards and forwards on:-

• Are principles actually rules or not etc
• Are principles actually givinng rise to a complaint. As a complaint can mean many forms of redress the principle is not giving right to redress but the complaint is. (or if the complaint is referred to the FoS the FoS is)
• Was CP 10 in fact new rules or a clarification of exisiting rules and lenders were simply not acting fairly and ignoring ICOB/(s).

It was clear the BBA were not challenging rule breaches in themselves. They accepted they had a problem and as long as a clearly defined ICOB/(s) or GISC rule was broken they could understand the complaint. It seemed to me they do not like mainly the automiatic application of rules to non complainants and full reviews of their book. (That is my interpretation only)

The really interesting part for me was when FoS spoke Thursday afternoon. They stated of 100 000 complaints ruled on in the last two years not one had been upheld due to principles alone. All had been upheld based on rules - they closely linked ICOB /(s) 2 and Principle 7 at this point. What was interesting is that on Friday none of the BBA's guys challenged FoS's appraisal - in fact one even went so far to say - 'we do not challenge the FoS figures quoted - we do not even challenge those complaints upheld by rules - we are challenging the more complicated complaints' . Which again in my opinion proves the banks are putting complaints on hold which should not be and are using this as an excuse.

The BBA then focused on treasury review for a large part of their summing up Friday which again in my opinion says they are looking at stopping the need for them to redress non complainants.

For our part we are seeing offers from all lenders now but that may be because we have always worked on sensible claims and not those which do not show a rule breach. For any lender who is now putting our claims on hold we are asking why and then sending all correspondance to FoS and the FSA.

I hope this helps and as I said this is just my interpretaion of the last few days.

Thank you so much George, I'm sure lots of people will be very grateful to you for posting

There is some anti CMC feeling on boards such as this, because as well as assisting people in reclaiming their PPI, and although we understand the need for CMCs and know there are some decent folks out there running businesses, there are a few rogues and we do end up then trying to assist people obtain refunds, sometimes for thousands, from CMCs which aren't quite so ethical as others. But please don't not post because of it, we are all trying to get the same aim, redress for customers of the lenders, we just prefer to empower people and help them do it themselves...though there have been a few times when the leccy has run out I've wished I wasn;'t quite so goody two shoes and had set a CMC up myself instead of this lol (I don't REALLY mean that.... I'd just end up giving people refunds out my own pocket if the lenders said no lol)

[leclerc]

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

This question is to George and MBD23.
Is PPI reclaiming your sole business model ie financial services reclaiming or are you a CMC in other fields apart from the financial services one?
Am asking out of interest and you do not have to give an answer that names those other areas btw.

[george]

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

I agree unfortunately like other industries a number of companies have given everyone a bad name. We are trying to work with the regulators to overcome this problem.

Re the JR we have been given an indication that judgement may be in two weeks

[enaid]

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

[quote=george;194735]I agree unfortunately like other industries a number of companies have given everyone a bad name. We are trying to work with the regulators to overcome this problem.

Sadly too, we very, very, rarely get to hear about the decent ones and how people have managed to have a good outcome using CMCs.
They have their place as do DCAs imho, but they should adhere to regulation and work for the paying customer not purely just to make a fast buck.
Also remember we are being fleeced by the very people we should be able to trust emphatically and that makes us all the more suspicious and hopefully a lot more careful with who we part with our well earned to.
Enaid x

[george]

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

Guys I really didn't want this to become a cmc debate hence my reluctance to post. I understand some people will agree with what I do others not - and I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that point. I just wanted to be honest and state my position at the start so I did not mislead anyone.
If anyone however has any questions from last week however please let me know I am happy to share any knowledge (although it is only my view of this).