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

[EXC]

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

'Game over' is a figure-of-speech not intended to be taken literally. In answer to your specific question: PPI mis-selling has never been a 'game' as such.
In this instance the term 'game-over' is intended to signify my belief that the procedure of reclaiming mis-sold PPI is nearing an end, certainly in terms of 80-90% uphold rates. A BBA victory ( which I believe is nailed-on) will see uphold rates fall to a more sustainable 20% ish. There will be no denial of 'PPI mis-selling' but a significant goal-post shift ( another figure of speech) will see many consumers walk away without any refund. Time will tell.

I think 'game over' is more applicable to PPI as an industry. Now that the Competition Commission has banned the selling of it at the point of sale (the only method by which it could be so widely sold and mis-sold) the market is effectively dead. Lloyds, the UK's largest bank and PPI provider, has stopped selling it altogether. PPI is finished.

If both the FSA & FOS lose the JR it does not prevent them from issuing other requirements that would, in my view, effectively maintain the same uphold rates.

[mids]

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

I do not believe that to be the case, there are many thousands of possible claimants out there still to be redressed.

Indeed the FOS has not even touched the water yet.

These new rules will make claiming easier and there by bring more claims.

Agreed, but many many claimants will fail. Hope Im wrong.

[pompeyfaith]

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

but many many claimants will fail

Please explain how you worked that out ? as the JR is not making it harder for complainants if the JR fails then the rules that were in place before the 1st December stand nothing changes.

If the Jr is upheld in the FSA/FOS favour then claims will increase by virtue of CMC,s and Solicitors and the great word of mouth.

[di30]

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

Graph - Judicial Review PPI complaints.....

"Payment Insurance Payment Battle"

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/n.../ppi-large.gif

[EXC]

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

''Consumer Panel issues challenge to firms to honour consumer Payment Protection Insurance claims''

http://www.fs-cp.org.uk/newsroom/2010/165.shtml

[mids]

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

Please explain how you worked that out ? as the JR is not making it harder for complainants if the JR fails then the rules that were in place before the 1st December stand nothing changes.

If the Jr is upheld in the FSA/FOS favour then claims will increase by virtue of CMC,s and Solicitors and the great word of mouth.

If the 2008 FOS guidance is quashed uphold rates will fall. I expect the BBA to win this one....eventually.

[leclerc]

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

If the 2008 FOS guidance is quashed uphold rates will fall. I expect the BBA to win this one....eventually.

I thought the new regulations ie the 2010 ones were the only ones under the JR. Furthermore, if they do go with the BBA challenge then they will work under the same rules as has been in effect which should in effect mean that the uphold rates may well be unaffected. I should add that Santander are not part of the JR so what does that tell you about their position? It suggests that there was clearly serious failings within Alliance and Leicester and Abbey. It would be rare if this was not across the board. Even if the banks win, they only win decision making issues with regards to claims be process with the new rules ie December 2010. That would mean that the rules would be the same as at November 30th 2010 which would mean the uphold rate would still be pretty high. Some banks have put on hold cases which cover that period of time.
I expect uphold rates to decline in time, but not because of the JR(although during the process the banks may lose cases and not payout). I expect uphold rates to decline based on the fact that there will be LESS cases since PPI came under the microscope and less people took out PPI. I suspect the next thing could be income protection/life insurance/personal accident plans might be the next since some of the banks have been flogging those polices post last years Competition Commission decision over PPI.

[Chip Tuesday]

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

I think what the BBA will be hoping is that through the JR of the August policy statement they will be able to launch an attack on Principal based regulation (it does lead to a certain level of lack of clarity). If the BBA suceeds in this argument it would in turn affect the entire running of the FSA and FOS procedures. But seeing as Treating Customers Fairly has been imbedded within the FSA's ethos for so long it seems unlikely that the banks can get away scot free.

This is my view of what the worst case senario could look like, but with a bit of luck and some good lawyers it shouldn't come to that.

CT

[EXC]

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

If the 2008 FOS guidance is quashed uphold rates will fall. I expect the BBA to win this one....eventually.

The increase in uphold rates for the last 2 years is not neccesarily due to the implementation of the FOS guidance. It came into force in November 2008 so for most of that year complaints were assessed on pre-guidance criteria but even so the total year's uphold rate was still almost 50%.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...ealt.html#ar3b

IMO the main reason for uphold rates increasing to 89% for the 2 subsequent years says more about the banks progressively poorer handling of complaints and claimants (and CMCs) wising up to making better quality complaints to the FOS.

[SoapyBubbles]

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

Afternoon all.

This has probably been asked before but here goes

Has any of the banks used the line 'your complaint is on hold because of the judicial review' only for the the customer to take their complaint to the FOS, where the complaint has been upheld and the bank has had to pay up regardless of the judicial review?

Is there any evidence of this?

I know the FOS will look at complaints which have been put on hold but have they actually upheld any complaints that a bank has put on hold because of the judicial review?

[di30]

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

As shown over at MSE news.......just posted.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/new...m_campaign=box

Two year wait for Ombudsman PPI rulings:

Many victims of debt insurance mis-selling may have to wait over two years to discover if they will receive compensation.
This is the result of a double whammy of delays meaning those already in debt face the frustration of a torturous lag after claiming redress.


More to follow on above link.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Also this here......


http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2035252

Call on sector to adopt new guidance from watchdog

Banks urged to follow rules on PPI complaints



Read more: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Art...#ixzz16xTEOwqr

[SoapyBubbles]

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

I'm no expert on the situation involving reclaiming missold PPI.

I'm a mere novice.

In my humble opinion however it seems the banks are calling the shots on this one and there doesn't seem to be anything that Joe Public can do to change it. It now appears the FOS could take 2 years to sort out all the complaints. Does this mean in essence you could wait 2 years for a decision from the FOS only to be told your complaint has not been upheld? How about that for a kick to the stones?

What other options has Joe Public got apart from the FOS? Any?

Is there really nothing else we can do?


PS Surely banks should have to give specific and easy to understand reasoning to how individual complaints for missold PPI is directly affected by the Judicial Review? I personally think the line 'because of the judicial review' covers a hell of a lot of ground.

[Chip Tuesday]

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

also see this article from MSE:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/new...claim-decision

***

just saw that Di has already posted this above, oops!

[EXC]

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

The FSA have refused to give us their response to the BBA's letter before action, essentially because the BBA won't allow them to.




Dear EXC

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) for the following information:

“1) Please supply me the FSA’s responses to all requests under the Freedom of Information Act made by the British Banker’s Association (BBA) and/or any individual acting on behalf of the BBA, from the beginning of 2010 to date.

2) Please supply me with the FSA’s response to the BBA’s Letter Before Action in respect of the BBA’s Judicial Review application against the FSA of 8 October 2010 (Administrative Court ref CO/10619/2010).”

Your request has now been considered and I will reply to your questions separately.

In relation to question 1, following a search of the relevant records, I can confirm that we do not hold the information you have requested.

In relation to question 2, I can confirm that we do hold the information requested. However, we are unable to provide it to you because this is (or contains) information which the FSA has received for the purpose of carrying out its regulatory functions under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”). This is prohibited from disclosure by virtue of section 348 of FSMA. As a result, the following exemption of the Freedom of Information Act applies:

• Section 44 (Prohibitions on disclosure)
  Section 44(1)(a) of the Act provides that information is absolutely exempt if its disclosure (otherwise than under the Act) is prohibited by or under any enactment. Section 348 of FSMA restricts the FSA from disclosing "confidential information" it has received except in certain limited circumstances (none of which apply here).
  Confidential information for these purposes is defined as non-public and non-anonymised information which relates to the business or other affairs of any person (without their consent) and which was received by the FSA for the purposes of, or in the discharge of, any of its functions under FSMA and which is not in the public domain.
  It may have been possible to disclose some or all of the information to you had the BBA given their consent. However, following consultation with them, they have refused to give their consent to disclosure.
  Disclosure of any such confidential information is in breach of section 348 of FSMA and is a criminal offence.
  Section 44 is an “absolute” exemption, and so it is not necessary to balance the public interests for and against disclosing the information.
• Section 32 (Court Records)
  Section 32 of the Act provides that information held by a public authority is exempt if it is held only by virtue of being contained in any document filed with a court for the purposes of proceedings in a particular matter.

If you are unhappy with the decision made in relation to your request you have the right to request an internal review. If you wish to exercise this right you should contact us within three months of the date of this letter.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you also have a right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Telephone: 01625 545 700
Website: www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely

S. Spies (Mrs)
Information Access Team

Financial Services Authority

[Chip Tuesday]

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

EXC,

Is there an online copy of the letter before claim?

CT