Tweet
Re: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold
Thanks so much for this very insightful report EXC, it's really useful. It's interesting to know that the BBA have seeminigly dropped the "common failings" argument, they really were barking up the wrong tree with that one!
If the BBA were so worried about the FSA's Principle-base regulation why didn't they bring a JR earlier? It seems to me that although the new PS10/12 has introduced new evidential provisions, the Principles are not altered but this. Why then is the BBA crying over the Principles?! This annoys me!! Also I hope that the "good evidence" praise won't get in the way of the judge holistically assessing the damage a ruling in favour of the BBA could make.
Is the reference to s404 of the Enterprise Act is confusing me a little. The Enterprise Act 2002 only has numbered sections up to s281, then Schedules 1-26. Are you sure it wasn't a reference to s404 of the FSMA 2000?
It's very cheeky that the BBA have linked the Principles to the FOS in such a way, I would still like to see the FOS arm of their argument thrown ou though.
CT
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Originally posted by EXC
View Post
If the BBA were so worried about the FSA's Principle-base regulation why didn't they bring a JR earlier? It seems to me that although the new PS10/12 has introduced new evidential provisions, the Principles are not altered but this. Why then is the BBA crying over the Principles?! This annoys me!! Also I hope that the "good evidence" praise won't get in the way of the judge holistically assessing the damage a ruling in favour of the BBA could make.
Is the reference to s404 of the Enterprise Act is confusing me a little. The Enterprise Act 2002 only has numbered sections up to s281, then Schedules 1-26. Are you sure it wasn't a reference to s404 of the FSMA 2000?
It's very cheeky that the BBA have linked the Principles to the FOS in such a way, I would still like to see the FOS arm of their argument thrown ou though.
CT
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Interesting FT article on the JR:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/25fa9302-2...#axzz1C8RkOreF
Lord Pannick QC, representing the BBA, told the High Court that the issues involved in this judicial review were “very substantial indeed” affecting “hundreds of thousands of consumers” and “hundreds of firms”.
He told the court that, according to the FSA’s own figures, the industry would have to pay between £800m and £1.3bn over five years for the cost of handling complaints about PPI.
In addition, the total cost to the industry of the wider package of measures would be between £1.1bn and £3.2bn, he told the court, assuming that 20 per cent of consumers complained they were mis-sold the policies.
He also told the court that the FSA had said the proposals would lead to 35 insurance intermediaries failing at a cost of £35m to the industry’s compensation scheme.
Lord Pannick said there had been an “error in law” by the FSA which “we believe imposes on firms an obligation more onerous than that set out in the conduct of business rules”.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/25fa9302-2...#axzz1C8RkOreF
Lord Pannick QC, representing the BBA, told the High Court that the issues involved in this judicial review were “very substantial indeed” affecting “hundreds of thousands of consumers” and “hundreds of firms”.
He told the court that, according to the FSA’s own figures, the industry would have to pay between £800m and £1.3bn over five years for the cost of handling complaints about PPI.
In addition, the total cost to the industry of the wider package of measures would be between £1.1bn and £3.2bn, he told the court, assuming that 20 per cent of consumers complained they were mis-sold the policies.
He also told the court that the FSA had said the proposals would lead to 35 insurance intermediaries failing at a cost of £35m to the industry’s compensation scheme.
Lord Pannick said there had been an “error in law” by the FSA which “we believe imposes on firms an obligation more onerous than that set out in the conduct of business rules”.
£1100 is a lot nearer the mark in my mind than the £3 to £5k being bandied about. So say an average payout of £1100 over 74 million customers ..... (where's my calculator?) ....
Comment