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

[Paul210]

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

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. I understand the FOS approach to redress and I understand that on upheld claims the 8% being payable is part of their guidance on ongoing loan claims.

What I don't understand is why RBS are not following FSA guidelines when offering redress. That is the issue I am trying to highlight.

Which other banks do you know of that aren't offering the 8% as standard on upheld complaints? I think i've heard of MBNA not offering it previously but i'm unsure.

HSBC are also making goodwill offers without interest.

RBS are making a goodwill gesture to settle, not an offer of full redress so technically its not a breach of FSA guidelines.

Its possible these are on accounts where its a bit of a grey area, i.e. they are struggling to recover info from time of sale etc but suspect is a case they may be able to defend, it may be the goodwill offers are a bid to clear the backlog rather than have to spend time dealing with FOS (and of course the case fee).

Also if looking at it cynically then you could say they are pushing their luck hoping some complainants will be desperate enough for money after waiting 7 months on hold that they will accept a reduced sum.

I've had clients this week who've chosed to accept goodwill gesture and forgoe interest in a bid to avoid delays of going through FOS so shows that the tactic is working for them.

[skv123]

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

I think you need to look at the FOS and their definition of redress which I think I have posted up here......hang on, will change my signature to reflect FOS guidelines....


EDIT: scrap that, it's here: how does the ombudsman approach redress where a PPI policy has been mis-sold?

Each individual case is different. In fact, the FOS has recently rejected a case which IMHO was pretty much a slam dunk(that one is now going through the court route).

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. I understand the FOS approach to redress and I understand that on upheld claims the 8% being payable is part of their guidance on ongoing loan claims.

What I don't understand is why RBS are not following FSA guidelines when offering redress. That is the issue I am trying to highlight.

Which other banks do you know of that aren't offering the 8% as standard on upheld complaints? I think i've heard of MBNA not offering it previously but i'm unsure.

[k77mss]

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

Letter from MBNA today upholding mis-selling on credit card and offering me all PPI premiums paid plus associated interest and 8% interest. Result!

well done can i ask when you put your complaint in as i'm still waiting for mine and i put mine in on 20th september 2010.was it an offer letter to sign and send back

[di30]

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

Letter from MBNA today upholding mis-selling on credit card and offering me all PPI premiums paid plus associated interest and 8% interest. Result!

Well done!

[flossie]

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

Letter from MBNA today upholding mis-selling on credit card and offering me all PPI premiums paid plus associated interest and 8% interest. Result!

[Angry Cat]

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

Clydesdale adds extra £100m for PPI claims





Published Date: 20 May 2011



http://business.scotsman.com/busines...for.6771183.jp

CLYDESDALE Bank and its sister UK operation, Yorkshire Bank, yesterday revealed they will take an extra £100 million provision against the mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI).

The decision by the UK operations of National Australia Bank (NAB) came after the British Bankers Association (BBA) recently decided not to appeal against an adverse ruling on the issue in the High court.


More details on above link.

Hmmm,
what about the portfolio of debts that Clydesdale/Yorkshire Bank sold?
Will they be going back over those, I wonder?

[StrayPup]

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

Well, why sue the one organisation that allows you to claim misselling? After all the rules were broken by banks with the sole aim of profit for themselves. I think any class action against the FSA would fail.

:wink:

[pompeyfaith]

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

On the subject of CCPPI I believe these would stand well on the point of unfair relationship.

On every credit card statement the PPI is listed before the interest for that month so they add it to the statement on say day 1 and becomes payable on day 14 or 28 there by attracting interest at the going rate.

A very good scam they add an unwanted policy then have the ordacity to charge you interest as well.

The PPI should always be listed last after the interest for that month, you do not even know what the PPI for that month would be as it varies from one month to the other so have no means to pay it the day it was added so have no way of avoiding that interest.

[leclerc]

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

...just a thought

... we cannot take collective action against the Banks for sharp practice post-PPI judgement since they have deep pockets lined with our cash, but what about a class action against the FSA for letting them get away with it?:tinysmile_hmm_t2:

Well, why sue the one organisation that allows you to claim misselling? After all the rules were broken by banks with the sole aim of profit for themselves. I think any class action against the FSA would fail.

[StrayPup]

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

...just a thought

... we cannot take collective action against the Banks for sharp practice post-PPI judgement since they have deep pockets lined with our cash, but what about a class action against the FSA for letting them get away with it?:tinysmile_hmm_t2:

[di30]

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

I assume these have already been posted on here somewhere.

The ways in which the FOS approach redress in different situations are set out below.

CREDIT CARDS

1. Where card account and the PPI are still in force.

If the consumer agrees to cancellation of the PPI the financial business should:

a) reconstruct the account by removing any premiums in respect of the PPI and any interest or charges in respect of those premiums;
b) if that produces a credit balance for any period, credit interest on that balance for that period at 8% simple per year; and
c) send the customer a statement showing the resulting balance on the account (with details of how it was calculated).

2. Where the card account is still open but the PPI has been cancelled.

The financial business should:

a) reconstruct the account by removing any premiums in respect of the PPI and any interest or charges in respect of those premiums;
b) if that produces a credit balance for any period, credit interest on that balance for that period at 8% simple per year; and
c) send the customer a statement showing the resulting balance on the account (with details of how it was calculated.)

3. Where the card account has been cleared and closed and the PPI has been cancelled:

The financial business should:

a) reconstruct the account by removing any premiums in respect of the PPI and any interest or charges in respect of those premiums;
b) if that produces a credit balance for any period, credit interest on that balance for that period at 8% simple per year;
c) pay the customer the difference between the revised closing balance and the original closing balance;
d) pay the customer interest on that difference at 8% simple per year from the date of closure to the date of payment; and
e) send the customer details of how the revised balance, the difference and the interest were calculated.

FOS may also consider it appropriate for the financial business to pay the consumer additional compensation for any distress and inconvenience he or she has been caused, including where the financial business rejected a complaint which it knew (or should have known) would be upheld, If they consider such an award is appropriate this will be specified by the adjudicator.

LOANS

These are examples full publication can be found on Link following them


Loan and PPI policy still in place at time of FOS decision.
Lender agreed for the cancellation of the PPI policy and restructuring of loan. E.g.
Overall loan repayments £250 per month but would have been £200 without PPI, term of policy was 60 months and complaint settled after 20 monthly payments.
· Return excess monthly payments of £50 x 20 payments up to date of settlement (£1000)
· Add interest to each payment of £50 at 8%simple, from date of each payment until lender repaid.
· Arrange loan to be restructured, so remaining 40 monthly payments reduced to £200
· Pay borrower £300 for extra inconvenience caused.

Loan and PPI policy terminated early before FOS decision.
Overall loan was for £23,000 (monthly payments £430) – but it would have been £18,000 with monthly payments of £340 without PPI. Policy term was 60 months; loan and policy cancelled are 23 monthly payments.
Borrower was required to pay £15,500 to settle the loan (after the business had taken account of the rebate of premium he was due of £1,200; but if he had not had PPI added to loan, the smaller loan of £18,000 would have cost £13,000 to settle at the same point.
So borrower had paid lender £90 a month more than he would have done, had the financial business not mis-sold the PPI policy; and £2,500 more to settle the loan after 24 months.
· Return 24 monthly payments of £90 to date of settlement (£2,160)
· Calculate difference between settlement costs incurred when borrower ended loan early and those he would have incurred had he settled the loan without the additional PPI element. (£15,500 - £13,000 = £2,500) pay difference to borrower.
· Add interest to each payment of £90 at 8% simple, from date that excess was incurred.
· Pay borrower £400 for extra inconvenience.

Loan and PPI policy ran to term before FOS decision
Overall loan was £7,500 (monthly repayments of £250) – but it would have been £6,000 with monthly repayments of £200 without PPI. Term of Loan and policy 36 months. So borrower had paid £50 more per month than if PPI not been mis-sold.
· Return £50 x 36 months of the loan (£1,800)
· Add interest to each excess payment of £50 at 8% simple, from date that excess was incurred.
· Pay £200 for extra inconvenience.


SUCCESSIVE SINGLE-PREMIUM PAYMENT PROTECTION INSURANCE

The exact approach to calculating compensation will depend on the overall circumstances of the individual complaint. In particular the calculations of compensation will vary according to the present status of the most recent loan and PPI policy. The financial business will be expected to consider the four scenarios set out below to ensure that the calculations are appropriate.

1. the most recent loan and the most recent PPI policy are still in force;
2. the most recent loan is still in force but the most recent PPI has been cancelled or has expired;
3. all the loans have been settled early and all the PPI has been cancelled;
4. the most recent loan and the most recent PPI policy have run the full term.

plus also additional compensation for any distress/inconvenience including where the financial business reflected a complaint which if knew (or should have known) FOS would uphold.

Subject to the consumer agreeing to cancel any PPI policy that was mis-sold and is stillin force the financial business should:

(A). In respect of each loan:
- recalculate the loan and the payments to what they would have been if the consumer had taken the loan without PPI
- repay to the consumer the amounts by which the payments actually made exceeded the recalculated payments;
- pay the consumer interest on each of these amounts at 8% per year simple from the date each payment was made to the date the compensation is paid;
- recalculate the balance that would have been outstanding at the end of each loan had the recalculated loan not included PPI.

(B) Calculate how much of the balance that was carried forward to the subsequent loan related to the cost of the PPI policy taken out for the previous loan: and
- repay to the consumer all amounts paid under each subsequent loan in respect of the carried forward balance, including interest and charges;
- pay the consumer interest on each of these amounts at 8% per year simple from the date each payment was made to the date the compensation is paid.

(C) Where the most recent loan is still in force and it includes the cost of the most recent PPI policy and/or any balance carried forward from the cost of previous
PPI Policies, the financial business should restructure the loan or arrange for the loan to be restructured so that the balance is reduced to the level that it would
have been if it had not included any of the costs of the mis-sold PPI policies.

(D) Set out in writing for the consumer details of the calculations under (A) (B) and (C).

[leclerc]

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

Thanks for bringing this to at least my attention.

My only fear is that you might have to go through a round of letters and phone calls to get the Credit Card companies to see it this way, as they try to "chisel" you... especially with this "goodwill payment geture" which allows them to get away with paying the interest.

What a wheeze! Seems at least they have lost none of their creative juices in extracting the maximum amount of cash from us. And the FSA stands idly by.

What is the redress I wonder for, against instruction, putting cases on hold for over half a year???

As I said, you have to argue the FOS would do better because a number of the banks current FAQ's state that they will make an offer and if you don't like it then go whistle dixie to the FOS. You need to be clear and unequivocable as to what you are arguing with regards to the FOS Guidelines.
So on Credit Cards:

"regular-premium credit card PPI

This covers the situation where:

a PPI policy is sold alongside the credit card; and
premiums are added to the balance, with interest payable on them.
Depending on the precise circumstances of each case, redress will normally involve five main considerations:

The cancellation of the PPI policy (if it is still in place).

The reconstruction of the credit-card account, to work out what the current balance would have been (where the account remains open) – or what the closing balance would have been (where the account has been cleared or closed) – if the consumer had made the same monthly payments but without PPI. This should be calculated by deducting the PPI premiums and the interest and charges that resulted from those premiums (including those arising because the ongoing monthly balance on the credit-card account was higher than it would have been, if the consumer had made the same payments to an account without PPI).

A statement showing the resulting balance on the credit-card account – to be sent to the customer along with details of how it was calculated.
If the reconstruction produces a credit balance for any period, the payment of interest (normally at the rate of 8% simple per year) on the credit balances for the period that the account was in credit.

The consideration of a payment for distress and inconvenience – for example, where the financial business rejected a complaint that it knew (or should have known) that the ombudsman service would uphold."

With regards to the distress and inconvenience, you might be able to argue that the delay in the claims being processed is the issue for you.

[StrayPup]

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

I think you need to look at the FOS and their definition of redress which I think I have posted up here......hang on, will change my signature to reflect FOS guidelines....

Thanks for bringing this to at least my attention.

My only fear is that you might have to go through a round of letters and phone calls to get the Credit Card companies to see it this way, as they try to "chisel" you... especially with this "goodwill payment geture" which allows them to get away with paying the interest.

What a wheeze! Seems at least they have lost none of their creative juices in extracting the maximum amount of cash from us. And the FSA stands idly by.

What is the redress I wonder for, against instruction, putting cases on hold for over half a year???

[di30]

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

Clydesdale adds extra £100m for PPI claims





Published Date: 20 May 2011



http://business.scotsman.com/busines...for.6771183.jp

CLYDESDALE Bank and its sister UK operation, Yorkshire Bank, yesterday revealed they will take an extra £100 million provision against the mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI).

The decision by the UK operations of National Australia Bank (NAB) came after the British Bankers Association (BBA) recently decided not to appeal against an adverse ruling on the issue in the High court.


More details on above link.

[leclerc]

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

They are removing it as though PPI was never added. What you say does make sense disproportionate reductions on cancellation would be much worse.

There is no breakdown but i don't require one as their offer is the monthly PPI multiplied by the months paid to date.

I understand the FOS is the only next step but it is disgusting that RBS are forcing people into a choice between a 12 months wait or acceptance of an incorrect offer despite the clear regulatory guidelines. There are a large percentage of people that won't feel able to wait due to the financial constraints of today's economy. There is also the (albeit small) risk that the FOS may decide there was no mis-sale.

I think you need to look at the FOS and their definition of redress which I think I have posted up here......hang on, will change my signature to reflect FOS guidelines....


EDIT: scrap that, it's here: how does the ombudsman approach redress where a PPI policy has been mis-sold?

Each individual case is different. In fact, the FOS has recently rejected a case which IMHO was pretty much a slam dunk(that one is now going through the court route).