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

[Turboman]

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

Well done Marshy

I sent for you to help me with the sums--and just like me , you're addicted to this site now.

But you have the experience & knowledge to find things out (unlike me) and are a credit to the site in just 2 weeks

Well done

Turbo

And also my mate Di30--who I also asked tocome across--although she's not into the concrete threads with sums like me & Marshy--she is always the catalyst to supply topical info & opinion from across the internet (unlike me)

Well done Di--you are also addicted to here---& well respected

Turbo

[di30]

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

And also my mate Di30--who I also asked tocome across--although she's not into the concrete threads like me & Marshy--she is always the catalyst to supply topical info & opinion from across the internet (unlike me)

Well done Di--you are also addicted to here---& well respected

Turbo

LOL, cheers Turbo,

Not been here so much today though, have had lots on at home, but here now. X
Thank you again, your all amazing on here, great site, and glad I've returned.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Probably updating the site. I could get on just before I posted and after when i tried again it crashed. They are probably making a statement lol........

Your probably right Marshallka, I have tried a few times too, thought it was my puter at first lol.
So more than likely updating with all the new recent issues. X

[di30]

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

Sorry can't remember what I posted up today lol....
This was from the media 5 hours ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...s-on-hold.html

Lloyds snubs FSA as it puts PPI claims on hold

Lloyds Banking Group, Britain's biggest bank, has collided head-on with the regulator by putting some customer complaints about mis-sold payment protection insurance (PPI) on hold until a forthcoming judicial review is heard.


The Financial Services Authority has reiterated that it expects all banks to continue handling customer complaints while the inquiry is under way.

Barclays confirmed that it was reviewing its PPI complaints handling process, while HSBC and Royal Bank of Scotland said discussions were under way between the British Bankers' Association (BBA) and the FSA on how PPI complaints should be dealt with in the interim.



Santander said it would continue to deal with all PPI complaints.
But a statement issued by the British Bankers' Association (BBA) last night said only claims "directly impacted by the judicial review" would be delayed.

These moves follow the decision by the BBA to seek a review of new FSA rules on how banks deal with PPI complaints. These rules, due to come into effect on December 1, would force banks to review millions of older PPI cases against new standards, which are designed to put a stop to highly pressurised sales.
According to Martin Lewis of Moneysavingexpert.com, these reviews could lead to compensation for up to 3m customers, costing some £2bn.

In a statement, Lloyds Banking Group – which includes the Halifax and Bank of Scotland brands – said: "While we wish to resolve all complaints quickly, it is now very difficult to know exactly how to handle a PPI sales-related complaint.
"Since the court challenge by the BBA is likely to take some time to come to a conclusion, the BBA is talking urgently with the FSA and Financial Ombudsman Service about how best to handle complaints during this period. We hope that they will be able to come to an agreed position soon."

A spokesman added that customers could still log complaints about PPI, but they were unlikely to be resolved until the judicial review was complete. The review is not expected to be heard until April at the earliest.

But it is not expected that the FSA will grant a "waiver", effectively allowing all banks to "freeze" complaints, as happened when there was court action pending over the legality of unauthorised bank charges. At the time it was agreed that such charges were a legal grey over, with no precedent set by either the courts or an Ombudsman's test case.

In contrast, there have been numerous investigations, directives, guidelines and enforcement actions surrounding the sale of PPI, the first of which was in 2006. The FSA has taken action against 24 companies over PPI failings, and there have been more than 1m mis-selling complaints.

A spokesman for the FSA said any bank customer who believed their complaint was not being handled correctly would be free to take it to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Recent figures published by the FOS show that it upheld more than 80pc of customers' complaints about mis-sold payment protection insurance.
PPI has been routinely sold alongside loans and credit cards, offering to protect repayments if the borrower is unable to work. However, while the banks earned substantial commission payments for selling these policies, many failed to explain the small print, which meant that some buyers would never have been able to make a valid claim.

In addition, premiums were often bundled into the cost of the loan, making it difficult for customers to compare costs properly.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------







http://www.out-law.com/page-11441


Court battle threatens PPI complaints regime:

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has promised it will vigorously defend a legal challenge to its new complaints regime for payment protection insurance (PPI).


New guidelines on how firms should assess complaints about PPI mis-selling and calculate appropriate redress are due to come into force on 1st December this year.

But on 8th October, the British Bankers Association (BBA) launched court proceedings for judicial review of the FSA’s approach and also the Financial Ombudsman Service’s approach to PPI sales complaints.

One of the main industry criticisms of the FSA's new guidance has been that the regulator is seeking to apply higher sales standards for PPI than were in the Handbook at the time the sales were made.

In its August policy statement, however, the regulator argued that firms have always been required to abide by the guiding principles for doing business. The duty to treat customers fairly (Principle 6) and to pay due regard to customers' information needs and communicate that information in a way that is clear, fair and not misleading (Principle 7) applied whether or not specific conduct of business rules were in place at the time of the PPI sale.

But in a statement published on its website, the BBA took issue with the FSA.
"We believe the FSA is effectively creating a precedent which permits it to apply new rules to previous sales – even where those sales were regulated by other FSA rules," said the BBA. "Therefore this ruling might not only affect customers who have bought PPI, but might also set a precedent that could affect all products regulated by the FSA."

In response, the FSA said it "strongly believes that the package of new complaint handling measures outlined in policy statement 10/12 is a sensible and fair solution for consumers and the industry alike."

"And that is why the FSA will vigorously contest the BBA’s judicial review of the new complaint handling procedures for the PPI market," it said.
Consumer watchdog Which? reacted strongly to news of the legal challenge. Chief executive, Peter Vicary-Smith said last week: “It makes you wonder what planet the banks are living on. Not content with the billions they have made from this over-priced, flawed and frequently mis-sold product, the banks now seem to be trying to wriggle out of implementing changes that would ensure consumers are treated fairly."

It is not known how long the court proceedings will take. In the meantime, the FOS has confirmed it will continue to handle all PPI complaints that are referred to it in the normal way.

[Amethyst]

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

Amethyst, what do you think of the Collective Redress that came into force today... (FSA granted powers for collective redress!!)

Shame they're to be disbanded (but then if they are why continue with this plan so really who knows whats going on there, we'll find out on 20th? I think when they lay out plans for the regulators and consumer bodies...not really sure whats happening there tbh.

I havent read the docs yet (or seen any other news on it, and the FSA sites down) that you put up earlier, collective redress was a big issue back in April time I think, with the Financial Services Bill which was dropped. I didnt know it was back on the agenda as it were, but if the FSA have been given more powers (and they actually use them) it can only be a good thing for us, but more for the banks to fight against (to our detriment).

I like the mention of publicising actions taken BEFORE waiting for the outcome of stalling appeals - I guess if appeals do succeed it could end up costing the FSA some sort of compensation or an apology but thats small fry compared to if publicity saves consumers being conned by companies while they wait for the official appeal outcomes ?

Will read, and think about it more in morning, been a busy day xx

[pompeyfaith]

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

Amethyst,

It has indeed, and it goes without saying thank you for the effort you have put in today is appreciated by me.

PF

[di30]

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

I agree PF, well done Amethyst, you have certainly worked extremely hard indeed.
We all appreciate it very much, cheers! x

[NLP]

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

100% appreciated over here aswell!

[EXC]

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

It looks like the BBA (and possibly the FSA) have given their blessing to the hold on complaints:



.''....a statement issued by the British Bankers' Association (BBA) last night said only claims "directly impacted by the judicial review" would be delayed........... the BBA statement indicates the FSA may accept some complaints will be delayed. Banks are required to tell customers if they complaint is affected by this review''.

Lloyds risks FSA clash over customer PPI complaints - Telegraph

[Tools]

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

I will speak again to the BBA, FSA, FOS & named banks today to confirm this story and report back.

[Tools]

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

Just spoken to Brian Mairs

Julian -

We are about to issue this statement and put this revised factsheet online. You have this first:

"The BBA's members will continue to handle all PPI-related complaints in accordance with FSA rules. Where the the assessment of the complaint would not be affected by the judicial review, these complaints will be handled in the normal way. If your complaint will be impacted by the judicial review, and cannot be resolved at this point, then your bank will write to inform you.

"Customers should be assured that all complaints will be reviewed - even those delayed by this judicial review process. There is no deadline for receipt of complaints. If customers have a problem regarding PPI they should contact their bank and, if necessary, complain in the normal way."



Best,

Brian Mairs
Strategic Communications

[Amethyst]

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

If you want to check what is affected (and not much tbh) then as the fsa site keeps being burgered I'm uploading a copy of the policy document here.

[EXC]

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

So I take it we don't yet know what the precise criteria is for complaints that fall within the assessment of being affected by the Judicial Review?

Edit
Just seen you've posted the policy doc - can you e-mail it?

[Amethyst]

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

DISP - coming in in DEC 2010 (this is what they don't want to come in)

DISP App 3.1 Introduction
DISP App 3.2 The assessment of a complaint
DISP App 3.3 The approach to considering evidence
DISP App 3.4 Root cause analysis
DISP App 3.5 Re-assessing rejected claims
DISP App 3.6 Determining the effect of a breach or failing
DISP App 3.7 Approach to redress
DISP App 3.8 Other appropriate redress
DISP App 3.9 Other matters concerning redress
DISP App 3.10 Application: evidential provisions



So I think, an example of the effect is.... (am checking with brian)

The first rule that the FSA wants banks to abide by is

The firm:
· pressured the customer into taking a
payment protection policy;

the fsa quote sections of the handbook which should be applied to ALL PPI claims

ICOB:
2.2.3R to 2.2.7G (Clear, fair and not misleading
communication)
ICOBS:
2.2.2R (Clear, fair and not misleading rule)
6.1.5R to 6.1.10G (Ensuring customers can make an
informed decision)

HOWEVER

ICOB ended 05/01/2008
ICOBS didn't come in until 06/01/2008


So, if your PPI was sold to you after 06/01/2005 and before 05/01/2008 companies only should take into account ICOB

(1) When a firm communicates information to a customer, it must take reasonable steps to communicate in a way that is clear, fair and not misleading.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a firm when it communicates a non-investment financial promotion in circumstances in which ICOB 3(Financial promotion) applies to the firm. )

Where as if it was AFTER 06/01/2008 it should only take ICOBS into account thus;

ICOBS 2.2.2 06/01/2008 When a firm communicates information, including a financial promotion, to a customer or other policyholder, it must take reasonable steps to communicate it in a way that is clear, fair and not misleading.
ICOBS 6.1.5 06/01/2008 A firm must take reasonable steps to ensure a customer is given appropriate information about a policy in good time and in a comprehensible form so that the customer can make an informed decision about the arrangements proposed.
ICOBS 6.1.6 06/01/2008 The appropriate information rule applies pre-conclusion and post-conclusion, and so includes matters such as mid-term changes and renewals. It also applies to the price of the policy.
ICOBS 6.1.7 06/01/2008 The level of information required will vary according to matters such as1) the knowledge, experience and ability of a typical customer for the policy;
(2) the policy terms, including its main benefits, exclusions, limitations, conditions and its duration;
(3) the policy's overall complexity;
(4) whether the policy is bought in connection with other goods and services;
(5) distance communication information requirements (for example, under the distance communication rules less information can be given during certain telephone sales than in a sale made purely by written correspondence (see ICOBS 3.1.14 R)); and
(6) whether the same information has been provided to the customer previously and, if so, when.

ICOBS 6.1.8 06/01/2008 In determining what is "in good time", a firm should consider the importance of the information to the customer's decision-making process and the point at which the information may be most useful. Distance communication timing requirements are also relevant (for example, the distance communication rules enable certain information to be provided post-conclusion in telephone and certain other sales (see ICOBS 3.1.14 R and ICOBS 3.1.15 R)).
ICOBS 6.1.9 06/01/2008 Cancellation rights do not affect what information it is appropriate to give to a customer in order to enable him to make an informed purchasing decision.
ICOBS 6.1.10 06/01/2008 A firm dealing with a consumer may wish to provide information in a policy summary or as a key features document (see ICOBS 6 Annex 2).

SO as you can see the rules for policys sold AFTER 6/1/2008 is much stronger than for those sold prior to 05/01/2008.



I'm not going through EVERY rule, but you can see the banks point lol.

[Turboman]

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

Just printed out pages 95 to 155---useful for those that are into the actual calculations

[MrsSkint]

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

Thanks Ame - a bit much for my wee brain but much appreciated