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

[Amethyst]

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

You mention the theory that FOS will reject for minor reasons, what kind of reasons are you thinking of ? What are the rejections you are receiving based on ?

We did hear a lot of complaints coming out from the FOS (and the banks) about the quality of claims being submitted to them particularly from CMCs, ie. forms not completed correctly, information extremely vague, and I think it was HSBC complaints dept that mentioned over 25% of complaints received never actually had had any PPI products with them in the first place. I presume, as you are showing a decent interest in the JR that your firm are one of the better ones and ensuring the complaints you submit to the FOS and banks are correct with all the detail on to begin with.

[ncf355]

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

this is also interesting which some people may not have seen before - from EGG

Having carried out a review of your complaint , I am able to confirm that your complaint has been upheld.
Howewver you may be aware that on 8 oct a judicial review of complaints handling was issued.....As a consequenece there is uncertainty as to the rules applicable to how we should calculate any refund in relation to your complaint, however as soonas the outcome of the judicial review process is final, we shall calculate the refund owed to you

Thats an utter P take!

Have you sent that to the FSA (as opposed to FoS), or asked them to justify their stance on this?

[leclerc]

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

this is also interesting which some people may not have seen before - from EGG

Having carried out a review of your complaint , I am able to confirm that your complaint has been upheld.
Howewver you may be aware that on 8 oct a judicial review of complaints handling was issued.....As a consequenece there is uncertainty as to the rules applicable to how we should calculate any refund in relation to your complaint, however as soonas the outcome of the judicial review process is final, we shall calculate the refund owed to you

What date is the EGG case from, ie the ppi not the decision?(apologies if you have already answered this one already as I'm catching up at the minute.)
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
One further point, as far as I am aware Santander are the ONLY ones progressing complaints onwards. Not sure any other lender(albeit 200,000 cases Halifax credit cards) are doing this.

[pompeyfaith]

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

Paul210,

No arguments from me just trying to understand and extract MDB method of thinking out of him so we can all better understand the implications here.

Just as Amethyst is doing in post 1276.

This is after all an open forum all views are welcome whether we agree or not.

[Angry Cat]

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

If the FSA found failings between 2005 and 2007, stands to reason that there were failings prior:
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/...2008/149.shtml

Of course, we all know about the failings prior to 2005...!

[Paul210]

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

Paul210,

No arguments from me just trying to understand and extract MDB method of thinking out of him so we can all better understand the implications here.

Just as Amethyst is doing in post 1276.

This is after all an open forum all views are welcome whether we agree or not.

didnt mean argument as in blood about to be spilled, in retrospect maybe vigorous debate would have been a better description..

[Angry Cat]

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

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/mon...cle5617410.ece

The Competition Commission found that Egg was one of the most expensive providers of PPI.

[Amethyst]

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

Very odd, the JR relates to rules to find if redress due, as far as I'm aware shouldn't effect the calculations used to get to refund amount,

Think you want this part

DISP App 3.7 Approach to redress
DISP App 3.8 Other appropriate redress
DISP App 3.9 Other matters concerning redress

For example;

General approach to redress: all contract types

DISP App 3.7.1 01/12/2010 Where the firm concludes in accordance with DISP App 3.6 that the complainant would still have bought the payment protection contract he bought, no redress will be due to the complainant in respect of the identified breach or failing, subject to DISP App 3.7.6 E.
DISP App 3.7.2 01/12/2010 Where the firm concludes that the complainant would not have bought the payment protection contract he bought, and the firm is not using the alternative approach to redress (set out in DISP App 3.7.7 E to 3.7.15 E) or other appropriate redress (see DISP App 3.8), the firm should, as far as practicable, put the complainant in the position he would have been if he had not bought any payment protection contract. DISP App 3.7.3 01/12/2010 In such cases the firm should pay to the complainant a sum equal to the total amount paid by the complainant in respect of the payment protection contract including historic interest where relevant (plus simple interest on that amount). If the complainant has received any rebate, for example if the customer cancelled a single premium payment protection contract before it ran full term and received a refund, the firm may deduct the value of this rebate from the amount otherwise payable to the complainant. DISP App 3.7.4 01/12/2010 Additionally, where a single premium was added to a loan: (1) for live policies:
(a) subject to DISP App 3.7.5 E, where there remains an outstanding loan balance, the firm should, where possible, arrange for the loan to be restructured (without charge to the complainant but using any applicable cancellation value) with the effect of:
(i) removing amounts relating to the payment protection contract (including any interest and charges); and
(ii) ensuring the number and amounts of any future repayments (including any interest and charges) are the same as would have applied if the complainant had taken the loan without the payment protection contract; or
(b) where the firm is not able to arrange for the loan to be restructured (e.g. because the loan is provided by a separate firm), it should pay the complainant an amount equal to the difference between the actual loan balance and what the loan balance would have been if the payment protection contract (including any interest and charges) had not been added, deducting the current cancellation value. The firm should offer to pay any charges incurred if the complainant uses this amount to reduce his loan balance; and
(2) for cancelled policies, the firm should pay the complainant the difference between the actual loan balance at the point of cancellation and what the loan balance would have been if no premium had been added (plus simple interest) minus any applicable cancellation value.
DISP App 3.7.5 01/12/2010 Where a claim was previously paid on the policy, the firm may deduct this from redress paid in accordance with DISP App 3.7.3 E. If the claim is higher than the amount to be paid under DISP App 3.7.3 E then the firmDISP App 3.7.4 E. may also deduct the excess from the amount to be paid under DISP App 3.7.6 01/12/2010 Where the firm concludes that the complainant may have reasonably expected that a rejected claim would have been paid (see DISP App 3.5) then: (1) if the value of the claim exceeds the amount of the redress otherwise payable to the complainant for a breach or failing identified in accordance with this appendix, the firm should pay to the complainant only the value of the claim (and simple interest on it as appropriate); and
(2) if the value of the claim is less than the amount of the redress otherwise payable to the complainant for a breach or failing identified in accordance with this appendix, the firm should pay to the complainant the value of that redress.
Alternative approach to redress: single premium policies

DISP App 3.7.7 01/12/2010 Where the only breach or failing was within DISP App 3.6.2 E (9) and/or DISP App 3.6.2 E (12), and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the firm may presume that instead of buying the single premium payment protection contract he bought, the complainant would have bought a regular premium payment protection contract.
DISP App 3.7.8 01/12/2010 If a firm chooses to make this presumption, then it should do so fairly and for all relevant complainants in a relevant category of sale. It should not, for example, only use the approach for those complainants it views as being a lower underwriting risk or those complainants who have cancelled their policies. DISP App 3.7.9 01/12/2010 Where the firm presumes that the complainant would have purchased a regular premium payment protection contract, the firm should offer redress that puts the complainant in the position he would have been if he had bought an alternative regular premium payment protection contract.DISP App 3.7.10 01/12/2010 The firm should pay to the complainant a sum equal to the amount in DISP App 3.7.3 E less the amount the complainant would have paid for the alternative regular premium payment protection contract.
DISP App 3.7.11 01/12/2010 The firm should consider whether it is appropriate to deduct the value of any paid claims from the redress.
DISP App 3.7.12 01/12/2010 Additionally, where a single premium was added to a loan, DISP App 3.7.4 E applies except that in respect of DISP App 3.7.4 E (1)(a) the cancellation value should only be used if the complainant expressly wishes to cancel the policy.
DISP App 3.7.13 01/12/2010 The firm should, for the purposes of redressing the complaint, use the value of £9 per £100 of benefits payable as the monthly price of the alternative regular premium payment protection contract. For example, if the monthly repayment amount in relation to the loan only is to be £200, the price of the alternative regular premium payment protection contract will be £18.
DISP App 3.7.14 01/12/2010 Where the firm presumes that the complainant would have purchased a regular premium payment protection contract and if the complainant expressly wishes it, the existing cover should continue until the end of the existing policy term. The complainant should pay the price of the alternative regular premium payment protection contract (at DISP App 3.7.13 E) and should be able to cancel at any time. This pricing does not apply where DISP App 3.7.4 E (1)(b) applies.
DISP App 3.7.15 01/12/2010 So that the complainant can make the decision on the continuation of cover from an informed position, the firm should: (1) offer to provide details of the existing payment protection contract;
(2) inform the complainant that he may be able to find similar cover more cheaply from another provider in the event that he chooses to cancel the policy and take an alternative but remind the complainant that if his circumstances (for example, his health or employment prospects) have changed since the original sale, he may not be eligible for cover under any new policy he buys;
(3) make the complainant aware of the changes to the cancellation arrangements if cover continues;
(4) explain how the future premium will be collected and the cost of the future cover; and
(5) refer the complainant to www.moneymadeclear.org.uk as a source of information about a range of alternative payment protection contracts.

[ncf355]

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

Hi Ame,

I've asked this question before but is there legislation that supports the use of ICOBS/DISP/Etc in private court action by an individual?

[Paul210]

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

Arent the DISP's part of the FSA handbook? are BBA challenging this as well as the use of high level principles?

[leclerc]

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

Hi Ame,

I've asked this question before but is there legislation that supports the use of ICOBS/DISP/Etc in private court action by an individual?

Here is a case re missold PPI at the court of appeal (case is Harrison v. Black Horse)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/3152.html

paragraph 6 explains their case.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
That is section 150 of the FSMA(2000)

[ncf355]

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

Thanks LC, much obliged!

[Amethyst]

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

Hi Ame,

I've asked this question before but is there legislation that supports the use of ICOBS/DISP/Etc in private court action by an individual?

Breach of Principles = No, Breach of Guidance = No, Breach of Rules = not entirely sure but I don't think it is other than as an implied term...only the FSA can take action on breaches.

The DISP app 3 ref PPI is an E (Evidential) (not G,R, or P) so that is a no.

This is probably most helpful...from Overview of PPI Litigation

There are three layers of regulation within the FMSA, Principle, Rule and Guidance. Private individuals may not sue for breach of principles (Only the FSA can do that). By section 150 of the FMSA an action for damages can be brought for breach of a Rule. There is no remedy for breach of Guidance. In ICOB the rules are followed by a capital ‘R’, e.g. 4.2.1R

Before 14th January 2005 the industry was self regulated. Most insurers belonged to the General Insurance Services Council (“GISC”). Its Private Code regulated private sales. The content of GISC more or less mirrors the FSA regulations in less detail (but possibly with greater clarity).

If a lender or insurer is a member of GISC then compliance with the Code will be an implied term. If not, it will be viewed as industry standard, and will be good evidence for a claim for breach of an implied term that PPI would be sold with reasonable care and skill or negligence. This is not yet accepted by the Banks and is yet to be tested in actual litigation although what is stated represents the current view of the FOS.

Misrepresentation is also a relevant cause of action in respect of all financial mis-selling – primarily on the basis of partial non disclosure. Negligence in the sense of negligent mis-statement is plainly relevant too. As to negligence properly so called, there is a debate at the moment whether there is a duty of care owed by lenders to customers but negligence as a cause of action is currently being pleaded also.

[Amethyst]

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

crossed with Nats - other cases you want to look at are Yates v Nemo, Black Horse v Speak & Speak, Wollerton v Black Horse, and Harrison v Black Horse (as Nats mentioned)

[Jayson2000]

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

Good Afternoon all, this is my first post. I have been following the discussions after my PPI claim with EGG.

I submitted the claim at the end of October 2010. Loan dates back to October 2005 and only has 6 payments remaining. I got the usual 8 week responses. It took them 12 weeks and 2 holding letters to respond to me.

I have received a holding letter stating that the have Upheld my complaint but due to the JR are unable to calculate the claim. I'm not sure if they are just stalling. I didn't think the JR was regarding calculations of refunds.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Excellent and informative posts on here, it's been the best resource regarding this complicated process.

Many Thanks