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

[leclerc]

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

Glad somebody else feels the same way. Ive spoken to my bank this morning and they have more or less said that if my complaint had not have been submitted via a CMC my claim would have been settled.

Why? I would have thought if you and the CMC had submitted it at the same time then it would have been treated the same or are you saying that if you hadn't delayed by contacting the CMC first that the complaint would have been settled already?

[righty]

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

Glad somebody else feels the same way. Ive spoken to my bank this morning and they have more or less said that if my complaint had not have been submitted via a CMC my claim would have been settled.

Let the CMC know as based on the banks sentiment they have a case to take them to court NOW

Also write to the bank & confirm what was said

[EXC]

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

We've finally got the court docs but as they were only available in hard copy I'll have to scan each page (of which there are about 200) so don't expect them to get posted up before early evening.

The FOS response was in fact filed on time last Friday but didn't get logged on to the courts system.

The documents consist of:

*FSA Detailed Grounds of Resistance
*FOS Grounds for Resisting Claim
*Nemo Grounds for Supporting Claim

The case is now listed including Nemo as a party.

I've only had a chance to read the FOS submission but essentially they are resisting the claim outright due to the time limit and are contesting the claim in substance on the grounds that the ''guidance'' the BBA complains of is not '''guidance'' at all and is in fact merely information as to how the FOS reach their PPI decisions and does not represent a change in the criteria by which they decide complaints.

Counsel for FSA:
Micheal Brindle QC
Monica Carss-Frisck QC
Richard Coleman
James McClland

Counsel for FOS:
Hodge Malek QC
James Strachan

Counsel for Nemo:
Micheal Fordham QC

[Amethyst]

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

I guess the FOS follow the regulations set by the FSA so are really a bystander.

Nemo had 94% of complaints against insurances upheld in consumers favour by the FOS last year. Not great record and I suspect they would be looking at being expected to repay a similar percentage of customers back the insurances under the pro active rules. That would be a heck of a lot of their profit hit. (No sympathy whatsoever)

[EXC]

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

In their submission Nemo state they have only sold 5000 odd policies themselves so on the face of it it hardly seem worth their while getting involved. But if 94% were mis-sold then it probably does.

Nemo submission attached.

[pompeyfaith]

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

If nemo were granted permission to be party one wonders why no CMC's have applied also?

[EXC]

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

If nemo were granted permission to be party one wonders why no CMC's have applied also?

According to their trade association they considered it:

''Whilst the CSC had also considered to be heard as an interested party, CSC members on balance felt that this would not be particular useful, given the likely cost. Members, particularly the larger CMCs felt that PR / lobbying activities would be more productive.''

[mids]

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

Why? I would have thought if you and the CMC had submitted it at the same time then it would have been treated the same or are you saying that if you hadn't delayed by contacting the CMC first that the complaint would have been settled already?

The impression I got was clear. One of my claims ( I have six in total...hence my interest in this) would have been handled differently if I had submitted directly myself. Its clear my claim is being discriminated against because I have used a CMC. I used the same CMC to defend CCA claims against me. I cant now sack the CMC
as I am contracted to them. I dont want to anyway as I think they have done a good job so far in one of my other claims. I can see the banks point of view. I have six claims in total ( 4 on paid off loans), if it hadn't been for the CMC I wouldnt have been aware that I could claim on paid off agreements. Its clearly this 'claim farming' that the banks are trying to stop. Having said that, CMC or not, I am adamant I was ripped off!!!

[Amethyst]

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

FOS Grounds http://www.legalbeagles.info/FOS_JR_...galBeagles.pdf

[EXC]

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

Thanks Ame.

I’m quite pleased with the FOS response as I was always a bit more concerned with the challenge to them than the FSA. If the FOS ‘guidance’ was quashed it may leave it open to the BBA to challenge all the upheld complaints for the last couple of years.

[pompeyfaith]

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

mids although on a personal point of view i do not advocate cmc's myself and is because i have sorted 9 policies myself i believe there is a need for cmc's no upfront fee ones anyway because many folk do not have the time or know how to do it themselves or just cant be bothered with it so they do have a use but the cmc market does need a clean up as there are like anything else rouges out there that do not have the customers interest in the forfront

[mids]

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

Yes Pompey, agreed. I think my own CMC is very good but Im angry that my claim is viewed differently because its been submitted on their letterhead rather than my own. The actual complaint is the same. Ive been diabetic since 1998 and self-employed since 1999. My own 'business relationship manager' ( whom I trusted) arranged a large loan for my business, the payments were affordable so I agreed. What he didnt tell me was that he debited my account with £12600 to pay for PPI. I didnt know this until my CMC checked my loan agreement about 4 yrs after it had been paid off!!! Im looking at total claims values of near on 35k plus interest...this will secure my family for a couple of years...thats why Im angry. I still cant see why I am now subject to JR just because Ive gone through a CMC???? Anybody?

[Amethyst]

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

http://www.legalbeagles.info/FSA_JR_...galbeagles.pdf

FSA Grounds

[pompeyfaith]

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

Yes Pompey, agreed. I think my own CMC is very good but Im angry that my claim is viewed differently because its been submitted on their letterhead rather than my own. The actual complaint is the same. Ive been diabetic since 1998 and self-employed since 1999. My own 'business relationship manager' ( whom I trusted) arranged a large loan for my business, the payments were affordable so I agreed. What he didnt tell me was that he debited my account with £12600 to pay for PPI. I didnt know this until my CMC checked my loan agreement about 4 yrs after it had been paid off!!! Im looking at total claims values of near on 35k plus interest...this will secure my family for a couple of years...thats why Im angry. I still cant see why I am now subject to JR just because Ive gone through a CMC???? Anybody?

Neither can I mids it totally stinks, a CMC is a third party and really is no different to getting a mortgage via a broker for instance.

Its ok for them to sell products via a third party, but soon as us consumers do it its a different matter.

If both you and the CMC are in regular contact to update etc then I cannot see what the problem is.

[EXC]

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

At paragraph 142 of the FSA's submission (http://www.legalbeagles.info/FSA_JR_...galBeagles.pdf) the FSA accuses the BBA of ''inserting words in square brackets that change the meaning'' of an FSA quoted passage in the BBA's JR application.

Naughty.