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

[Danlaw]

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

Suspect FSA will use new powers to enforce review of all post-2005 sales of PPI to teach the banks a lesson. This will be more expensive than following the complaints handling process under DISP. Silly BBA!

[cappo]

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

Suspect FSA will use new powers to enforce review of all post-2005 sales of PPI to teach the banks a lesson. This will be more expensive than following the complaints handling process under DISP. Silly BBA!

what a shame for them danlaw,i feel and this is only my opinion if the banks get taken to task for this a lot of things in the banking industry will change, only by being forced to be fair to consumers and giving them 100% redress will anything change, it,s going to seem a bit of a stitch up if yet again banks walk away as di says we,re all hoping for the best ,no-one knows, we,re all hoping for a miracle but hey stranger things have happened,heres hoping it all gets sorted soon apparently the banks seem to be moving forwards with claims again. (or so my cmc tells me)

[NLP]

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

The FSA is funded by a levy on the banks... many will do well to remember that.

[MBD23]

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

claimscouncil JR Update


Dear All

As you are all aware, the JR application was concluded at the end of last month with the Judge reserving his decision. Whilst there have been rumours on some blogs, that a decision has already been made, I do not believe there is any substance behind such rumours. Those involved still believe that a decision is unlikely to be handed down before Easter.

In outline, the principle arguments submitted by the BBA were:-

1a) Nowhere in the relevant legislation, or pre-enactment discussions that took place in the parliamentary drafting process, is it stated that breaches of “Principles” can result in redress entitlements to the consumer. Conversely, it is specified that breach of rules etc do create redress entitlements to the consumer.

b) Principles are at high level (i.e. very broad brush) . They help where specific rules are not in place, perhaps because they relate to circumstances never envisaged by the legislators. FSA have said on several previous occasions that detailed rules would be put in place to cover specific areas of issue. Principles are precursors to detailed rules.

c) There is an inconsistency between rules and principles. A Principle can be breached, yet the action may not result as a breach of the rules (e.g. Principle may say if you incorrectly state “x” in sale particulars, you are in breach of the Principle, whereas the specific rule might say: if you incorrectly state “x”, but had relied on information supplied to you from a reputable source in making that statement, the rule has not been broken). Thus, the specifics to be relied on are the rules not the Principles.

Thus, the FSA erred in law by making the banks pay redress for breaches of Principles.

2) Whilst the FSA is empowered (S404 of FSMA) to put redress schemes in place, such as to redress consumer detriment resulting from widespread breach of regulatory rules, a “scheme order” must be first obtained from the Treasury. This statutory process was not followed, so the redress scheme is therefore not lawful.

Thus, the FSA acted unlawfully in implementing the Redress Scheme

3) In 2008, FOS published the basis behind their decision making. This was based on the FSA’s Principles. If it is wrong for the FSA to award redress to consumers for breach of Principles, it must be similarly wrong for FOS to similarly rely on them. Whilst FOS has more scope for considering other matters when making their decisions, FOS cannot impose penalties that Parliament did not make available to it, i.e. breach of Principles does not entitle consumers to redress.

Thus, in basing FSA Principles as the cornerstone of their decision criteria, FOS erred in law.

My own thoughts are that the FSA may have not fully followed the letter of the law but did follow the spirit of the law. The million dollar question iswhether the Judge is a stickler for technicality or takes more of a “Lord Denning” approach, i.e. follows thespirit of the legislation. Political pressure may result in the former approach prevailing.

So where is the situation on the ground currently ?

a) I have been advised that the FSA is insisting that lenders investigate all complaints, even if the lenders are not willing to give a final decision at this point. Theoretically, this means that if the lenders are unsuccessful in their attempts to avoid paying redress due to breaches of principles and FOS methodology and decisions are vindicated, then lenders should be in a position to swiftly issue redress offers. However, based on past behaviour of lenders, this appears to be a somewhat optimistic expectation.

b) FOS are now feeling the strain. Before Christmas, they were receiving around 1500 referrals per week. Last week, they received 6,000. These large volumes are leading to processing bottlenecks. It may take in excess of 3 weeks before FOS are able to even acknowledge receipt of a complaint. To assist in the processing, FOS have made the following requests:-

(i) Where practically possible, CMCs should send cases to FOS on a regular/ daily basis, rather than in sporadic batches.
(ii) If a CMC is due to send large case volumes/batches to FOS, the CMC is requested to advise FOS before submitting, so that FOS can reallocate resource. Last week, for example, FOS received a batch of 800 cases from 1 CMC, without prior warning. Although FOS liaises with larger CMCs to anticipate volumes, (using data supplied in relation to the age of claims progressing through claims management systems which have not yet reached the 8 week referral trigger), FOS are now finding that a number of CMCs who have not historically submitted many cases to them, are now doing so.
(iii) if a CMC wishes to chase for an update, the CMC is requested to allow a period of 3 weeks from submission before doing so. Calls/e-mails/letters instigated before this just add work onto work and slow down processing even further.

FOS acknowledge that they are in a predicament regarding the handling of complaints. Firstly, although FOS are requesting lenders to justify, on a case by case basis, what the lender’s grounds are for not giving a final decision (and specifically why the lender believes that the facts of that particular case are such that the case will be affected by the outcome of the JR), lenders are not responding to those requests . Secondly, if FOS uphold a complaint before the JR is concluded, the decision is unlikely to be enforceable in practical terms.

Unfortunately, none of this bodes well for consumers or the CMCs who represent them, until such time as the JR is finally concluded and the FSA and FOS know where they stand.

[Angry Cat]

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

The FSA is funded by a levy on the banks... many will do well to remember that.

The whole industry, actually:
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/...0m-budget-hike

same applies to the Financial Ombudsman Service:
The FOS is funded by a combiniation of annual fees (general levies) and case fees. The annual fees are paid by all FSA-regulated firms.

NLP, you continue to attempt to inform us about matters that are already known!

[Class Act]

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

If the "couple of weeks" theory is correct we're looking at Friday, but without anything concrete it's anyone's guess.

CT

My FOS mole tells me they are not expecting judgement until early April or Easter time.

Been reading the comments last couple of days and thought i would add my thinking....

The Banks putting ALL complaints on hold are doing this not because they ALL fall under the JR, but because it cuts off the feed supply to CMC's. If they win the JR it means that virtually they do not have to write to effected consumers and also 80 maybe 90% of CMC's will be out of the market.(if it drags on!) So the picture is no letters and virtually no CMC's = billions saved.

My understanding of the FSA is that they do not issue letters warning enforcement if they believed that hundreds of thousands of complaints could be settled on ICOB/ICOBS breaches and the general law. This letter suggests that the regulator believes that irresoective of the outcome many firms did not comply with the ICOB rules.

Many demands and needs statements i have seen do not establish suitability of the contract, they only establish eligibility and this is backed up by the fines and enforcement directives already given by FSA.

If the BBA win, alot of complaints will fail on the basis that suitbaility can be established by the Bank (my opinion), and i think you would find the FOS uphold rate drop, but people can still complain and get redress providing they can prove the policy was not suitbale for them given their needs and circumstances at that particular time.

[NLP]

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

The whole industry, actually:
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/...0m-budget-hike

same applies to the Financial Ombudsman Service:
The FOS is funded by a combiniation of annual fees (general levies) and case fees. The annual fees are paid by all FSA-regulated firms.

NLP, you continue to attempt to inform us about matters that are already known!

and you continue to remain a very angry cat.

life aint all that bad.

try not to let people wind you up so easily.

[Angry Cat]

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

and you continue to remain a very angry cat.

life aint all that bad.

try not to let people wind you up so easily.

Angry Cat, is just a pseudonym.
One should not place too much emphasis on a fictuous name.

[NLP]

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

Angry Cat, is just a pseudonym.
One should not place too much emphasis on a fictuous name.

Ok thanks.

[MBD23]

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

with NLP's own financial interest, off course he would like to be wrong in this matter. he is however not expecting to be , although what his right is Im not sure. Time and delays I think is what he is saying with the end result being favoured in the banks interest due to political and financial realitys
everyone will ultimately know at the same time , when the judgement is offered so until then think we will just have to endure the " i know more than you " jobes which ultimately dont amount to much as everyone will find out the decision at the same time , i think we have now moved into the area of resentment and gallows humour creeping in at the same time, there is a lot of anger about people in the industry who have potentially seen their opportunity to make a lot of money taken away
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
i think some of the people who criticised me for saying there was no point sending a claim to fos unless you had been given an smdl or a 6 month time bar letter will now understand more why I was saying this, there really is no point until the JR is over and at that point you would be better of rveerting back to the lender for a fianl decision than having done loads of work getting your claim to fos and being stuck in the fos system, i still believe fos will ask you to go back to the lender for a fianl response, thats fos's style to try and shift as much off their desks as possible

[debtisbad]

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

Good for you, Cappo, no buying of insurance through banks. I get any insurance that I need elsewhere these days, just like yourself. There are plenty of comparison and consumer websites to help.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
I'm not sure if the banks have truly been "taken to task", as you pit it. The banks appear to bank roll many of our politicians, effectively buying their loyalty. There was an interesting rticle in the Daily Mail that showed that bankers may not be all that sincere in agreeing a deal with the Government this week. Take a look:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aningless.html

[EXC]

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

It looks like the FSA have been quitely investigating another widespread mis-selling scandal - fee paying current accounts.

It's easy to forget that it is the FSA and not the OFT that regulate the supply of current accounts.

Much of the FSA's concern appears to be about insurance elegibility as well as mis-selling and so it has distinct similarities to PPI. It may be that the issues under contention in the PPI Judicial Review will have a bearing on how the FSA handle this one.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...873#post196873

[Chip Tuesday]

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

claimscouncil JR Update


Dear All ....

Hi MBD23,

Where did you find this Claims Council JR Update? I don't seem to be able to find it elsewhere on t'internet anywhere.

CT

[NLP]

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

Hi MBD23,

Where did you find this Claims Council JR Update? I don't seem to be able to find it elsewhere on t'internet anywhere.

CT

Maybe he/she is a member of the CSC?

[Chip Tuesday]

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

It's just that it's not on the CSC webiste under either Latest Industry News, Press Releases or Publications :S Puzzling!

CT