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

[cappo]

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

hi all,first time on here ame has thankfully shown me the ropes,go gently on me though i type at the speed of a snail, i came on here a few days ago trying to find some answers to whats going on with this judicial review i,m afraid i really am a newby to forums though,this is the first one i,ve been on, the lack of good reliable info on this bba judicial review is a bit disturbing can,t find anything any younger than 3 months old anywhere on the net,like the rest of you i,ve had plenty of fun with the banks 6 cases proceeding at the speed of a snail through the very slow banks complaints process,now the j.r throws a further spanner in the works

[ncf355]

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

This behaviour re the JR has to be sorted out

They'll be blaming a solar eclipse for calculation delays next!

(lets face it, its about as relevant)



If it was me, I'd write back to them asking why they feel the JR prevents them from making a calculation and ask for full chapter and verse so that can then be sent to the FSA

Just how much is it going to take before the FSA realise that "strongly" worded letters dont cut it, they need to fine them to stop this kind of crap
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

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)

Thanks to you and all that have given details above!

(only just noticed the footer re Leclerc being TAFKA Nat!)

[di30]

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

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

A fantastic write up on the explaination of the PPI ligitation Ame, cheers for that, and when reading through one of mine, the Credit Agreement was regulated, but they would not take any liability whatsoever, anyhow the broker did dissolve, these were Click Finance, they do have other Click business running, still did then and before that, so we were not able to make a complaint to these.
However it seems the lender was not actually governed by GISC prior to the FSA when these taken over in Jan 2005 (despite having a regulated agreement), we had taken this loan out in July 2004, so missed out on that one, the lender by the way is Endeavour personal finance.

Thanks for the fab details though, its given me food for thought.

[di30]

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)

I will also take a look through this out of interest.

I was mis sold by Nemo and talking about hard work, even though we were successful in the end through the FOS.
The SAR we received was absolutely disgusting too, it wouldn't have been too bad if they had deleted some of the personal things they said!

[george]

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

Di
re your EPF loan you may have a claim against the insurer for accepting you on risk subject to the details of your claim. They will decline it and so it may take time however we do win these through the FoS. Take a look at who underwrote the policy and fire off a letter to them. Hope this helps

[di30]

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

Di
re your EPF loan you may have a claim against the insurer for accepting you on risk subject to the details of your claim. They will decline it and so it may take time however we do win these through the FoS. Take a look at who underwrote the policy and fire off a letter to them. Hope this helps

Hi George thanks for this.

I did forget to say that my case in regards of the insurer who were Hamilton are actually with the FOS now, its been with them since Oct 2009, infact received a letter today from the FOS who are still investigating, but after I emailed them also today, they said they would email me with a detailed update, so am hoping to have received this by tomorrow sometime.
Cheers for that though George.

[di30]

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

Nothing we don't already know about really......

http://www.money-marketuk.com/index....nce&Itemid=395

Victims of miss-selling now hit by payment delay.

Victims of payment protection insurance miss-selling have had a tough few years, but are now suffering double ignominy due to the utter contempt shown towards them by banks.


Not only were they deviously flogged this often useless cover by greedy lenders, hungry to bolster their bulging pockets, now these same institutions are holding up the rightful return of that cash.

The Financial Ombudsman Services, which handles disputes between consumers and financial institutions, has admitted that in typical scenarios it can take 12 months before a ruling on PPI cases. In extreme cases, it is taking double that time.

The group cites two reasons for this. First, a lack of staff because the industry never expected the 2,000+ claims made every week.

Second, banks failing to cooperate when asked for information regarding a claim.

The latter scandal is a result of the British Bankers’ Association launching a judicial review to halt Financial Services Authority (FSA) plans to force lenders to review millions of previous, suspicious sales that could yield £2bln in payouts.

Banks – Santander excluded – have already ignored clear FSA guidelines to continue hearing PPI claims from customers.

Now, they are failing to provide key information to help the Ombudsman – who consumers must turn to as banks won’t listen – make a decision. Talk about rubbing salt into gaping wounds.
While the Ombudsman must shoulder some responsibility for the delays, banks’ role cannot be ignored.

Let’s say their judicial review is justifiable – that’s not my view, but just for argument’s sake. At least follow your regulator’s orders and play by the rules rather than act like the cowboys many perceive banks to be.
Yet even the case itself is an attempt to sidestep compensation based on a technicality – banks’ argument being that they are forced to judge past claims on new rules that weren’t in place at the time.

But when salesmen tick a box when a consumer has declined insurance or have failed to explain key exclusions, no rule book would permit such clear breaches of trust.
And that word – trust – is something few consumers have for banks. This latest, shameful episode is hardly helping matters.

[MBD23]

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

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?

whats the point, the banks are too powerful, noone will do or say anything to them until the judicial review has been completed or what they do themselves could be found to be unlawful, either way the banks are getting away with runniing the show, and noone is doing anything about it, once again they get away with it even on ppi, a product such as single premium is now illegal to sell!

[pompeyfaith]

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

I think perhaps I best phone my bank in the morning just to make sure the settlement that myself, the bank and the FOS was all in agreement with will be paid out.

I know the FOS said give them 8 weeks, but it is already 5 weeks on top of the 2.5 years it has taken to get to this stage.

[pompeyfaith]

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

I cannot see how PPI mis-selling is any different to the great endownment insurance scam which I was also rip-off with except if my memory serves me correct I was sent the forms on that one and invited by the insurer to make a claim.

Indeed that was a lot less a pain that this PPI scam

[MBD23]

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

I cannot see how PPI mis-selling is any different to the great endownment insurance scam which I was also rip-off with except if my memory serves me correct I was sent the forms on that one and invited by the insurer to make a claim.

Indeed that was a lot less a pain that this PPI scam

maybe better described they were sent confusing letters that were designed to time bar them if they ddint make a claim within a certain period of time, certainly I would say more people got time barred from these letters than ended up receiving money?

Was the CMC end of the market that really got consumers claiming compensation in this area

[Chip Tuesday]

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

Just to help clear up the FOS issue from the previous page:

http://totalreclaim.wordpress.com/20...dicial-review/

Today we have received confirmation that one customer will be receiving £4694 and another, £6437.

CT

[Mebestmatewes]

Re: Lloyds puts PPI claims on hold in defiance of regulator

Has this issue been resolved now? Can I calim my PPI back through Lloyds or should I wait still?

[Chip Tuesday]

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

Hi Mebestmatewes!

Unfortunately it has not been resolved (if you're talking about the judicial review). We are still waiting for the judgement to be issues. However, the FSA and FOS have said that they will try to deal with complaints during this process, and the above example is just reassurance on that point.

CT

[Paul210]

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

Just to help clear up the FOS issue from the previous page:

http://totalreclaim.wordpress.com/20...dicial-review/


CT

Welcome finance never placed cases on hold, they have continued to investigate and refund throughout, it is almost certain that these would have been settled direct rather than gone through FOS.