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

[di30]

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

This is an email one of the posted received today from the FSA in regards of his PPI complaint, nothing new really.......


"
In response to your claim I would say that regulated firms, including banks, cannot refuse to process complaints. The FSA expects firms to continue handling PPI-related complaints in line with its rules. That said, one of these rules does enable firms, in appropriate cases, to send a holding reply. DISP 1.6.2R states:
"The respondent must, by the end of eight weeks after its receipt of the complaint, send the complainant:
(1) a final response; or
(2) a written response which:
(a) explains why it is not in a position to make a final response and indicates when it expects to be able to provide one;
(b) informs the complainant that he may now refer the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service; and
(c) encloses a copy of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) standard explanatory leaflet."
You should receive a response from the firm within 8 weeks, after which you can escalate your complaint to the Ombudsman if you are dissatisfied with the response."
ALSO
"
If any consumer feels that their complaint has not been handled fairly, then they should refer their complaint to the Ombudsman. I accept that in some cases, firms will have a reasonable basis for sending a holding reply pending the outcome of the judicial review. It is important to note, however, that this will depend on a consideration of the individual circumstances of the PPI complaint. The FSA does not agree that it is appropriate to put all PPI complaints on hold. In any case, on hold means not assessing or investigating the complaint, rather than rejecting it. Consumers can and should go to the FOS if they are not satisfied."

[NLP]

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

For Debt Star - some education!

The Supreme Court (which till recently was the law court of the House of Lords) has overturned previous rulings on bank charges. This should have no effect on previous claimants, but it's a major setback for those waiting to claim.
The judges were only ruling on a technical point: whether the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is allowed to assess the charges for fairness under regulation six of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.
As the judges wrote in their judgment (another mind-melting 46 pages, so forgive me if I cnat' tpye whlie my bairn szziels):
"It is...appropriate to spell out at the outset that the Court does not have the task of deciding whether the system of charging personal current account customers adopted by United Kingdom banks is fair."
The court hasn't decided whether it is fair that the 12 million who face many charges are subsidising the (on average) much wealthier 42 million other banking customers. The judgment went further:
"Some would regard the United Kingdom system as being, in some sense at least, obviously unfair...That is an imponderable question which depends partly on whether one's perception of the average customer who incurs unauthorised overdraft charges is that he is spendthrift and improvident, or that she is disadvantaged and finding it hard to make ends meet. But it is not the question for the Court."
It's the cost of a service

The judges went further by saying that the price paid is for the cost of a service, putting an end to the long-running idea that these are penalties under law. This is a massive point.
There is no doubt that this is a double-sledgehammer blow for claimants, but it won't be the last we'll hear of it.
With two of the courts ruling on the claimants' side in earlier rounds, it begun to look, to many claimants, like the banks were just a David clutching at pebbles against the Goliath of consumer pressure. Now it is the customers who have taken the role of David, but they will still feel a fight in them. Indeed, consumer group Which? has already signalled it strongly intends to continue its supporting role, and I know that the Consumer Action Group, with its huge member base, will be looking for new routes to a satisfactory conclusion. The banks fought on through their hard times, so we can expect claimants to do the same too.
Claimants do have some areas where they can put up a decent fight. The judges went beyond their remit, as they often do, to give guidance to Parliament and the OFT:

[leclerc]

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

For Debt Star - some education!

The Supreme Court (which till recently was the law court of the House of Lords) has overturned previous rulings on bank charges. This should have no effect on previous claimants, but it's a major setback for those waiting to claim.
The judges were only ruling on a technical point: whether the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is allowed to assess the charges for fairness under regulation six of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.
As the judges wrote in their judgment (another mind-melting 46 pages, so forgive me if I cnat' tpye whlie my bairn szziels):
"It is...appropriate to spell out at the outset that the Court does not have the task of deciding whether the system of charging personal current account customers adopted by United Kingdom banks is fair."
The court hasn't decided whether it is fair that the 12 million who face many charges are subsidising the (on average) much wealthier 42 million other banking customers. The judgment went further:
"Some would regard the United Kingdom system as being, in some sense at least, obviously unfair...That is an imponderable question which depends partly on whether one's perception of the average customer who incurs unauthorised overdraft charges is that he is spendthrift and improvident, or that she is disadvantaged and finding it hard to make ends meet. But it is not the question for the Court."
It's the cost of a service

The judges went further by saying that the price paid is for the cost of a service, putting an end to the long-running idea that these are penalties under law. This is a massive point.
There is no doubt that this is a double-sledgehammer blow for claimants, but it won't be the last we'll hear of it.
With two of the courts ruling on the claimants' side in earlier rounds, it begun to look, to many claimants, like the banks were just a David clutching at pebbles against the Goliath of consumer pressure. Now it is the customers who have taken the role of David, but they will still feel a fight in them. Indeed, consumer group Which? has already signalled it strongly intends to continue its supporting role, and I know that the Consumer Action Group, with its huge member base, will be looking for new routes to a satisfactory conclusion. The banks fought on through their hard times, so we can expect claimants to do the same too.
Claimants do have some areas where they can put up a decent fight. The judges went beyond their remit, as they often do, to give guidance to Parliament and the OFT:

For NLP, I'll help you out with the end of the quoted article and if I was the author of the above post I would want my work attributed.

So here is the source:
Bank charges: The banks have won!

"You're looking at the wrong section

To the OFT, the Supreme Court hinted that it might want to look at a different section of the law. Instead of regulation six, it should look to regulation five. By not allowing the customers to have a say in whether the bank should accept transactions that take them beyond their unauthorised overdraft limit, for example, the banks could be said to be in breach of this regulation.
More protection needed

There were also half a dozen strong hints throughout that the Court believes that new legislation is necessary to support customers. The judgment states, to take one example, that Parliament "might wish to consider" revising the law to make the protections level with some other EU states.
Perhaps this whole thing will inspire changes in the law and that will mean it'll all have been worth it for the millions of (on average) much poorer and indebted people who subsidise the banking of wealthier people.
One of the judges, however, suggested such legislation would be difficult and instead said that the problem might be a lack of competition between the banks in the products they offered.
The Office of Fair Tradings response

The OFT said today it is disappointed for customers and looking at whether to pursue its investigation, and that it will explore existing and future legislation. It will review the judgment in full and update us in December.
Considering what is fair

The Financial Ombudsman Service's (FOS) view is not yet known. The FOS is not tied to law alone, but can make individual rulings based on all the facts of the individual case and considering what is fair. There's a possibility it will still rule on some claimants' side. As it said today:
"The law is one of the things (emphasis added) that the ombudsman has to take into account when we decide cases." The FOS, like the OFT, is reviewing the judgment more thoroughly before commenting further.
More doubts from the banks, or just soothing propaganda?

The British Bankers' Association (the banks' PR - or propaganda - machine) today said that it'll still be working with the OFT in regards its investigation into whether charges are fair. Either this is to make it seem benevolent and caring (which, as we all know, banks are in spades) or it's because it believes it will, in the end, have to reduce charges. That would at least be a partial victory for claimants.
Should we ever have claimed?

Many will be asking now "Was it right to reclaim in the first place and that earlier claimants are keeping their money?" It will be no surprise to many of you what I think. I was the first financial journalist to start campaigning on this issue, years ago. (I'm not the only one to say that, but it's true.) I trusted my legal background and my mother, a lawyer.
Personally, I think claimants were within their legal rights to make claims and it's good for those hundreds of thousands who managed to do so. To those of you who are against claiming I say this: if you believe that people shouldn't try to get the best for themselves financially then you shouldn't shop around for the best deals, because that means that other poor sods will end up with worse deals.
Furthermore, wealthier people also shouldn't try to reduce their tax bills, for example, because this means poorer people must pay more to compensate. Of course, this will never happen. We will all, always, try to maximise our own finances. Indeed, that's the only way the system can possibly work, humans being what they are.
So long as people maximise their finances in a legitimate way (i.e. by legally reducing our tax bill or by taking up our rights to get the opinion of a judge) then I won't complain. That's why we, at lovemoney.com, will continue to give advice to all on how they can optimise their finances. Just as we'll let wealthier people know if there's a way to reduce their taxes, we'll be letting hopeful claimants know if we find another route around bank charges. Once my brain recovers from reading the judgment, that is.
Last words of hope from the judgment

"...this will not close the door on the OFT's investigations and may well not resolve the myriad cases that are currently stayed in which customers have challenged Relevant Charges.""
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
And for your reading pleasure, here is the opinion of Anthony Scrivener QC, written way after the November 25th article you have quoted.

Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaims - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[NLP]

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

For NLP, I'll help you out with the end of the quoted article and if I was the author of the above post I would want my work attributed.

So here is the source:
Bank charges: The banks have won!

"You're looking at the wrong section

To the OFT, the Supreme Court hinted that it might want to look at a different section of the law. Instead of regulation six, it should look to regulation five. By not allowing the customers to have a say in whether the bank should accept transactions that take them beyond their unauthorised overdraft limit, for example, the banks could be said to be in breach of this regulation.
More protection needed

There were also half a dozen strong hints throughout that the Court believes that new legislation is necessary to support customers. The judgment states, to take one example, that Parliament "might wish to consider" revising the law to make the protections level with some other EU states.
Perhaps this whole thing will inspire changes in the law and that will mean it'll all have been worth it for the millions of (on average) much poorer and indebted people who subsidise the banking of wealthier people.
One of the judges, however, suggested such legislation would be difficult and instead said that the problem might be a lack of competition between the banks in the products they offered.
The Office of Fair Tradings response

The OFT said today it is disappointed for customers and looking at whether to pursue its investigation, and that it will explore existing and future legislation. It will review the judgment in full and update us in December.
Considering what is fair

The Financial Ombudsman Service's (FOS) view is not yet known. The FOS is not tied to law alone, but can make individual rulings based on all the facts of the individual case and considering what is fair. There's a possibility it will still rule on some claimants' side. As it said today:
"The law is one of the things (emphasis added) that the ombudsman has to take into account when we decide cases." The FOS, like the OFT, is reviewing the judgment more thoroughly before commenting further.
More doubts from the banks, or just soothing propaganda?

The British Bankers' Association (the banks' PR - or propaganda - machine) today said that it'll still be working with the OFT in regards its investigation into whether charges are fair. Either this is to make it seem benevolent and caring (which, as we all know, banks are in spades) or it's because it believes it will, in the end, have to reduce charges. That would at least be a partial victory for claimants.
Should we ever have claimed?

Many will be asking now "Was it right to reclaim in the first place and that earlier claimants are keeping their money?" It will be no surprise to many of you what I think. I was the first financial journalist to start campaigning on this issue, years ago. (I'm not the only one to say that, but it's true.) I trusted my legal background and my mother, a lawyer.
Personally, I think claimants were within their legal rights to make claims and it's good for those hundreds of thousands who managed to do so. To those of you who are against claiming I say this: if you believe that people shouldn't try to get the best for themselves financially then you shouldn't shop around for the best deals, because that means that other poor sods will end up with worse deals.
Furthermore, wealthier people also shouldn't try to reduce their tax bills, for example, because this means poorer people must pay more to compensate. Of course, this will never happen. We will all, always, try to maximise our own finances. Indeed, that's the only way the system can possibly work, humans being what they are.
So long as people maximise their finances in a legitimate way (i.e. by legally reducing our tax bill or by taking up our rights to get the opinion of a judge) then I won't complain. That's why we, at lovemoney.com, will continue to give advice to all on how they can optimise their finances. Just as we'll let wealthier people know if there's a way to reduce their taxes, we'll be letting hopeful claimants know if we find another route around bank charges. Once my brain recovers from reading the judgment, that is.
Last words of hope from the judgment

"...this will not close the door on the OFT's investigations and may well not resolve the myriad cases that are currently stayed in which customers have challenged Relevant Charges.""
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
And for your reading pleasure, here is the opinion of Anthony Scrivener QC, written way after the November 25th article you have quoted.

Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaims - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

well done, you are a good egg.. award yourself a biscuit!

shame about the dirty mouth on debt star

[The Debt Star]

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

I don't think I will be causing too much offence in calling you an arrogant twerp
Don't bother replying chap, but...if you do...I won't deign to respond; it'll only inflate your clearly overrated ego

[Angry Cat]

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

Steady On!

[NLP]

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

some people just have no class!

[righty]

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

There should be no need for any solicitors as that is the JOB of the FSA to do. They are just getting it all right I bet before they go out with a bang and "make" the banks redress. I just hope that they take away the need for claims companies (who seem to prey on people desperate anyway) and solicitors who take away more of your claim than its worth... and also there goes the work load of MOJ too. Job done!!!

Here we go again. Solicitors when acting for the victim DO NOT take any of the victims award, there legal costs are paid by the losing lender

I do wish people would stop spouting the rubbish most of which is insurance industry propaganda much like they claim that we have a compensation culture we don't & never have
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Unwarranted claims never reach court, reason the ATE insurers are not idiots & won't offer cover for a claim that has no possibility of success

[righty]

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

For NLP, I'll help you out with the end of the quoted article and if I was the author of the above post I would want my work attributed.

So here is the source:
Bank charges: The banks have won!

"You're looking at the wrong section

To the OFT, the Supreme Court hinted that it might want to look at a different section of the law. Instead of regulation six, it should look to regulation five. By not allowing the customers to have a say in whether the bank should accept transactions that take them beyond their unauthorised overdraft limit, for example, the banks could be said to be in breach of this regulation.
More protection needed

There were also half a dozen strong hints throughout that the Court believes that new legislation is necessary to support customers. The judgment states, to take one example, that Parliament "might wish to consider" revising the law to make the protections level with some other EU states.
Perhaps this whole thing will inspire changes in the law and that will mean it'll all have been worth it for the millions of (on average) much poorer and indebted people who subsidise the banking of wealthier people.
One of the judges, however, suggested such legislation would be difficult and instead said that the problem might be a lack of competition between the banks in the products they offered.
The Office of Fair Tradings response

The OFT said today it is disappointed for customers and looking at whether to pursue its investigation, and that it will explore existing and future legislation. It will review the judgment in full and update us in December.
Considering what is fair

The Financial Ombudsman Service's (FOS) view is not yet known. The FOS is not tied to law alone, but can make individual rulings based on all the facts of the individual case and considering what is fair. There's a possibility it will still rule on some claimants' side. As it said today:
"The law is one of the things (emphasis added) that the ombudsman has to take into account when we decide cases." The FOS, like the OFT, is reviewing the judgment more thoroughly before commenting further.
More doubts from the banks, or just soothing propaganda?

The British Bankers' Association (the banks' PR - or propaganda - machine) today said that it'll still be working with the OFT in regards its investigation into whether charges are fair. Either this is to make it seem benevolent and caring (which, as we all know, banks are in spades) or it's because it believes it will, in the end, have to reduce charges. That would at least be a partial victory for claimants.
Should we ever have claimed?

Many will be asking now "Was it right to reclaim in the first place and that earlier claimants are keeping their money?" It will be no surprise to many of you what I think. I was the first financial journalist to start campaigning on this issue, years ago. (I'm not the only one to say that, but it's true.) I trusted my legal background and my mother, a lawyer.
Personally, I think claimants were within their legal rights to make claims and it's good for those hundreds of thousands who managed to do so. To those of you who are against claiming I say this: if you believe that people shouldn't try to get the best for themselves financially then you shouldn't shop around for the best deals, because that means that other poor sods will end up with worse deals.
Furthermore, wealthier people also shouldn't try to reduce their tax bills, for example, because this means poorer people must pay more to compensate. Of course, this will never happen. We will all, always, try to maximise our own finances. Indeed, that's the only way the system can possibly work, humans being what they are.
So long as people maximise their finances in a legitimate way (i.e. by legally reducing our tax bill or by taking up our rights to get the opinion of a judge) then I won't complain. That's why we, at lovemoney.com, will continue to give advice to all on how they can optimise their finances. Just as we'll let wealthier people know if there's a way to reduce their taxes, we'll be letting hopeful claimants know if we find another route around bank charges. Once my brain recovers from reading the judgment, that is.
Last words of hope from the judgment

"...this will not close the door on the OFT's investigations and may well not resolve the myriad cases that are currently stayed in which customers have challenged Relevant Charges.""
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
And for your reading pleasure, here is the opinion of Anthony Scrivener QC, written way after the November 25th article you have quoted.

Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaims - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

AGAIN! I remark that the SC did not exercise the Francovitch Principal & therefore are at great risk of the UK being forced to pay compensation to those consumers effected by their ruling as well as having to revisit their judgment

[marshallka]

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

Here we go again. Solicitors when acting for the victim DO NOT take any of the victims award, there legal costs are paid by the losing lender

I do wish people would stop spouting the rubbish most of which is insurance industry propaganda much like they claim that we have a compensation culture we don't & never have
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Unwarranted claims never reach court, reason the ATE insurers are not idiots & won't offer cover for a claim that has no possibility of success

The ATE insurance that firms like Cartel (or their solicitors!!!) supposedly put in place for clients you mean???

Cartel RIP - Investigations

[leclerc]

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

well done, you are a good egg.. award yourself a biscuit!
I've been around the block a long time, NLP, so when I hear something that sounds like someone who has simply copy and pasted an article, then I do double check. You can google and so can I, so do you want tea or coffee with your biscuit?
shame about the dirty mouth on debt star

As Debt Star removed their remark then I assume that a polite word was had by someone on the forum to suggest that their remarks was simply not cricket and perhaps were offside so they removed them(google won't tell me that one though, lol!)

[NLP]

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

As Debt Star removed their remark then I assume that a polite word was had by someone on the forum to suggest that their remarks was simply not cricket and perhaps were offside so they removed them(google won't tell me that one though, lol!)

For gawds sake man, have a day orf, of course that was cut and pasted.... it was posted in that way.

You have issues, but they are fun to view... great entertainment to be fair... like bouncing balls against a wall

[righty]

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

The ATE insurance that firms like Cartel (or their solicitors!!!) supposedly put in place for clients you mean???

Cartel RIP - Investigations

One bad example.

Its my belief that Cartel didn't have ATE or disbursement funding, so before making such broad claims 1st understand something about how it works for most solicitors

[leclerc]

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

For gawds sake man, have a day orf, of course that was cut and pasted.... it was posted in that way.
Are you the author of the piece? If not then you need to source it as Di30 and Marshallka have been doing. Or you might want to have an original thought which would be a change from the usual.
You have issues, but they are fun to view... great entertainment to be fair... like bouncing balls against a wall

I have to get the builders in on that wall cos my head keeps damaging it, lol!

[di30]

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

UK banks' PPI claim bill could hit £5bn


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...d-hit-5bn.html

British banks could be hit with a £5.1bn bill over the next five years for claims over their misselling of payment protection insurance, as the estimates for the cost of compensating customers continue to rise.

More to follow on above link.