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

[Angry Cat]

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

Not new but of benefit:
http://www.johnpughschambers.co.uk/O...Litigation.htm

[cappo]

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

Not new but of benefit:
http://www.johnpughschambers.co.uk/O...Litigation.htm

nice one cat,very useful info as several of my agreements go back to when the banks were self regulating and only just unfortunately before the fsa took over the watchdogging of the banking system.

[Class Act]

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

I don't think the FOS are saying that they've never upheld a case on principles alone (though they probably haven't) but rather that the BBA have failed to highlight a case whereby they have.

I would agree that the s404 part of the BBA's case is the main reason for them bringing the action - as it clearly would be the most costly element should they fail. But if the FSA lost that part of the case I'm convinced they'd apply for a s404 order. The decision not to use s404 that was made at a board meeting in July ''pending resolution of the new s404 power'' which was not in place at that time but now is.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/board-minutes/july_22.pdf

I think this is more to do with the cases that have already been rejected and hence its technically finished. The FSA were concerned a
that consumers who were entitled to redress (i believe some 400,000) who did not bother taking it any further (ie to FOS). Basically the Banks at this time were doing what they wanted on PPI complaints and rejecting them at source!

i would be surprised if the FSA went back for a S404 and industry wide review as it would mean PS/10 was in effect a waste of time and resource. I think they would of already done it to be honest!

So to sum up, if the FSA win, the PS statement stands as we know it, if they lose (which i believe is the principles issue) they would not be allowed to sanction s404 due to the Principles issue and the consumer has no right to sue etc.

[cappo]

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

I think this is more to do with the cases that have already been rejected and hence its technically finished. The FSA were concerned a
that consumers who were entitled to redress (i believe some 400,000) who did not bother taking it any further (ie to FOS). Basically the Banks at this time were doing what they wanted on PPI complaints and rejecting them at source!

i would be surprised if the FSA went back for a S404 and industry wide review as it would mean PS/10 was in effect a waste of time and resource. I think they would of already done it to be honest!

So to sum up, if the FSA win, the PS statement stands as we know it, if they lose (which i believe is the principles issue) they would not be allowed to sanction s404 due to the Principles issue and the consumer has no right to sue etc.

i think if the fsa lose class act there are going to be a lot of very fed up people out there,it couid only be the banks who wouid think they couid rip people off then deny them the ability to be able to reclaim by effectively fos them, they might have a point with the unenforceability of loans but the fsa have proved beyond a doubt that this insurance has been missold because simply put it,s illegal and shouid never have been sold in the first place.

[Class Act]

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

I still believe people can get their money back (if the BBA win) but it may only be on advice sales ie ICOB/ICOBS and proving a breach.

if the firm gave no advice (although how you define this is a joke, and how the hell the FSA allowed a single premium PPI to be sold on a non advised basis is an even bigger joke!!!) then its going to get very difficult indeed!

RBS/Natwest sold masses of PPI on a non advice basis, so i would think if the BBA win then they would be in a strong position claims wise!

[EXC]

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

I think this is more to do with the cases that have already been rejected and hence its technically finished. The FSA were concerned a
that consumers who were entitled to redress (i believe some 400,000) who did not bother taking it any further (ie to FOS). Basically the Banks at this time were doing what they wanted on PPI complaints and rejecting them at source!

i would be surprised if the FSA went back for a S404 and industry wide review as it would mean PS/10 was in effect a waste of time and resource. I think they would of already done it to be honest!

So to sum up, if the FSA win, the PS statement stands as we know it, if they lose (which i believe is the principles issue) they would not be allowed to sanction s404 due to the Principles issue and the consumer has no right to sue etc.

The main thrust of a s404 order is to review past ''business'' ie sales (and not just past complaints that have not been upheld by the banks) and as Which? puts it, it is akin to a ''product recall''.

''20. The CPMA must show greater willingness to utilise the s404 powers to require firms to actively review past sales of a particular financial product where detriment has occurred. This would be a similar process to a ‘product recall’.'' Financial Regulation

The FSA's description of s404 is:

''9 Section 404 provides for the establishment of schemes for reviewing past business where there is evidenced widespread or regular failure to comply with the FSA’s rules and consumers are either experiencing, or have the potential to suffer, loss. A scheme must be authorised by the Treasury following an application from the FSA outlining the alleged failure. Treasury authorisation is to be granted by way of Parliamentary order.''

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/cp/cp10_06.pdf

The main reasons the FSA gave for not using s404 initially is because it requires ''significant prior process disciplines'', in other words it's complicated and time consuming to set up. But since that time there have been several amendments made to s404 which makes the process of obtaining an order under it much easier - although it still wouldn't be a slam dunk.


The main difference between a root cause analysis and an s404 is the scope. A RCA would be firm specific whereas s404 applies industry-wide, although during the JR hearing Brindle told the court that s404 could be more targeted to industry ''segments''. The other difference is that unlike the situation we're in with RCA, a s404 order cannot be challenged by way of Judicial Review, as it is authorised by Parliament.

In the BBA's case they are arguing that the FSA are using the root cause analysis in DISP as a short cut substitute to achieving what s404 would mostly achieve anyway with the exception of the principles.

[cappo]

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

there,s really no way of determining which way this is going to go is there

[pompeyfaith]

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

Nope afraid not cappo still Easter is not too far away now.

[cappo]

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

Nope afraid not cappo still Easter is not too far away now.

lets hope for a positive one p.f a lot of people have got a fair bit riding on this,but even if ouesley is positive it,s not going to be the end is it, mind you i think we,re going to have to be positive i think the government is as fed up with the banks as the rest of us,i think they,ve got to be careful and not weaken this new regulators standing coming next year after all if the fsa/fos is seriously undermined then it might hurt the fsa,s replacement before it even starts.

[Class Act]

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

The main thrust of a s404 order is to review past ''business'' ie sales (and not just past complaints that have not been upheld by the banks) and as Which? puts it, it is akin to a ''product recall''.

''20. The CPMA must show greater willingness to utilise the s404 powers to require firms to actively review past sales of a particular financial product where detriment has occurred. This would be a similar process to a ‘product recall’.'' Financial Regulation

The FSA's description of s404 is:

''9 Section 404 provides for the establishment of schemes for reviewing past business where there is evidenced widespread or regular failure to comply with the FSA’s rules and consumers are either experiencing, or have the potential to suffer, loss. A scheme must be authorised by the Treasury following an application from the FSA outlining the alleged failure. Treasury authorisation is to be granted by way of Parliamentary order.''

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/cp/cp10_06.pdf

The main reasons the FSA gave for not using s404 initially is because it requires ''significant prior process disciplines'', in other words it's complicated and time consuming to set up. But since that time there have been several amendments made to s404 which makes the process of obtaining an order under it much easier - although it still wouldn't be a slam dunk.


The main difference between a root cause analysis and an s404 is the scope. A RCA would be firm specific whereas s404 applies industry-wide, although during the JR hearing Brindle told the court that s404 could be more targeted to industry ''segments''. The other difference is that unlike the situation we're in with RCA, a s404 order cannot be challenged by way of Judicial Review, as it is authorised by Parliament.

In the BBA's case they are arguing that the FSA are using the root cause analysis in DISP as a short cut substitute to achieving what s404 would mostly achieve anyway with the exception of the principles.

i was not doubting you, but the post in the FSA mins relates to the process of the rejected complaints and nothing more.

It does make you think though why the FSA never applied for it? Nemo defence was all on this topic and their firm belief was that the ICOB/ICOBS were not strong enough for the sales to be classed "mass mis-selling" hence the Principles were needed to back it up.

If the BBA win an order where by the oral disclosure was not needed ie it could be just mailed, the mass mis selling issue would fall away and therefore so would a section 404.

[Angry Cat]

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

nice one cat,very useful info as several of my agreements go back to when the banks were self regulating and only just unfortunately before the fsa took over the watchdogging of the banking system.

That is why, I posted the link:beagle:

[EXC]

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

i was not doubting you, but the post in the FSA mins relates to the process of the rejected complaints and nothing more.

It does make you think though why the FSA never applied for it? Nemo defence was all on this topic and their firm belief was that the ICOB/ICOBS were not strong enough for the sales to be classed "mass mis-selling" hence the Principles were needed to back it up.

If the BBA win an order where by the oral disclosure was not needed ie it could be just mailed, the mass mis selling issue would fall away and therefore so would a section 404.

No probs CA - it's good to discuss this.

I read the passage from the board minutes differently:

''The Board had reviewed the paper and supporting documents provided, to which reference was made throughout the discussion. The discussion incorporated the following key points.......putting on hold the introduction of rules to re-assess previously rejected complaints (not referred to the FOS) since 2005 (pending resolution of the new s404 power).''

The ''introduction of the new rules'' doesn't refer to s404, as s404 isn't a rule but a Parliamentary order. I assume that they were considering a stand-alone re-assessment rule for previously rejected complaints but decided to encompass it in the root cause analysis, which was the next item in the minute.

The only issue the BBA have with the RCA is that it includes reference to the principles. And so there is nothing to stop the FSA implementing the RCA requirements without using the principles.

I'm certainly no expert but I would hazzard that without the principles, ICOB, ICOBs & the general law would still capture the vast majority of PPI mis-selling and in fact immediately before the FOS adopted the principles in November 08, they were still achieving a healthy uphold rate of appx 70% - about the same as it is at present. So I don't think it's the end of the world at all should they lose the JR. I would hope that any loss of power from the policy statement would be made up for in other ways. The FSA are under tremendous pressure to solve the PPI issue and the policy statement was the culmination of years of consultation & investigation and I can't see them just walking away if they lose.

Unlike normal litigation a distinctive feature of Judicial Review procedure provides that if an authority has a decision quashed, the authority can ''revisit'' the decision and actually reach the same decision providing it is ''reached by different means''. It's not the decision itself that counts but the method by which it came about and it's for that reason I'm plumping on the FSA going s404.

As for Nemo saying that s404 can't apply to ICOB & ICOBs alone, they can naff off. It is entirely a matter for the Treasury and the FSA to decide and there is no influence Nemo or anyone else can bring to bear on it.

[Class Act]

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

No probs CA - it's good to discuss this.

I read the passage from the board minutes differently:

''The Board had reviewed the paper and supporting documents provided, to which reference was made throughout the discussion. The discussion incorporated the following key points.......putting on hold the introduction of rules to re-assess previously rejected complaints (not referred to the FOS) since 2005 (pending resolution of the new s404 power).''

The ''introduction of the new rules'' doesn't refer to s404, as s404 isn't a rule but a Parliamentary order. I assume that they were considering a stand-alone re-assessment rule for previously rejected complaints but decided to encompass it in the root cause analysis, which was the next item in the minute.

The only issue the BBA have with the RCA is that it includes reference to the principles. And so there is nothing to stop the FSA implementing the RCA requirements without using the principles.

I'm certainly no expert but I would hazzard that without the principles, ICOB, ICOBs & the general law would still capture the vast majority of PPI mis-selling and in fact immediately before the FOS adopted the principles in November 08, they were still achieving a healthy uphold rate of appx 70% - about the same as it is at present. So I don't think it's the end of the world at all should they lose the JR. I would hope that any loss of power from the policy statement would be made up for in other ways. The FSA are under tremendous pressure to solve the PPI issue and the policy statement was the culmination of years of consultation & investigation and I can't see them just walking away if they lose.

Unlike normal litigation a distinctive feature of Judicial Review procedure provides that if an authority has a decision quashed, the authority can ''revisit'' the decision and actually reach the same decision providing it is ''reached by different means''. It's not the decision itself that counts but the method by which it came about and it's for that reason I'm plumping on the FSA going s404.

As for Nemo saying that s404 can't apply to ICOB & ICOBs alone, they can naff off. It is entirely a matter for the Treasury and the FSA to decide and there is no influence Nemo or anyone else can bring to bear on it.

But Exec, do you not think that if losing the JR means losing on the "principles" (in effect), would this not mean a section 404 could not be applied for due to reasons outlined in the BBA argument?

Your right, its good to discuss these things. I only know what i have read from poeple like you posting the links etc ect....

[MBD23]

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

• Home
• Pensions
• Investments
• Mortgages
• Insurance
• Regulation
• Advisers

Listing by magazine

• FA
• IA
• MM

Fos names and shames PPI as its biggest offender

• Story by: Julia Bradshaw
• Magazine: FinancialAdviser
• Published Thursday , February 17, 2011

Half of the complaints made to the Financial Ombudsman Service in October, November and December last year were in relation to payment protection insurance, according to figures.
Advertising

<SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N6540.148984.FTADVISER/B5227474.2;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;click=;ord=[timestamp]?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N6540.148984.FTADVISER/B5227474.2;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;ord=[timestamp]?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N6540.148984.FTADVISER/B5227474.2;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;ord=[timestamp]?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT> AdvId: 2774839 AdId: 235570090 CrId: 40578908
Record numbers of complaints recorded by Fos, which totalled 25,000 in the three-month period, came with a warning from chief executive Natalie Ceeney that this would affect the levy paid by businesses to the ombudsman.
She said that since the judicial review on PPI complaints, brought by the British Bankers’ Association on behalf of a number of high-street banks, Fos has been receiving as much as 4500 PPI complaints a week.
Ms Ceeney said: “The figures reveal some good news, in that complaint numbers in some categories are levelling or starting to fall. However, things look different as far as complaints about PPI are concerned.”
According to the data, the ombudsman received 50,378 new complaints about financial products in the last quarter of 2010. Current accounts were responsible for 10 per cent of all complaints, credit cards accounted for 8 per cent, mortgages 4 per cent and overdrafts and loans 3 per cent of all cases. Of the total number of PPI complaints, 66 per cent were resolved in favour of the consumer.
Ms Ceeney said: “A number of major businesses are telling us they don’t intend responding substantively to many of these complaints until a final outcome to the legal action is known. Regrettably, this means that many thousands of consumers are now not getting straightforward answers from some businesses. The sheer volume of these new PPI complaints, and the lack of meaningful co-operation from some businesses, is making it difficult for us to progress all these cases as rapidly as we would like.”
A Fos spokesman added: “IFA complaints make up a very small amount of total complaints. When we see complaints about IFAs it is generally around investment and pensions, not things like PPI, and there is a general downward trend of complaints against IFAs.”
Richard Regueira, financial adviser for Wiltshire-based Lexington Wealth Management, called PPI a “rubbish” product.
He said: "Lenders used to tag it into loans and not disclosing it properly to customers, who eventually found out they would not be paid when they needed to be, because of exemptions they didn't know about, such as pre-existing conditions or being self-employed.
"It made the lenders an awful lot of money. It has been cut down now, and lenders have to disclose it properly, but we don't recommend PPI to our clients. We would advise income protection or redundancy insurance."
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

has nlp stopped posting?

just stopped boasting

[EXC]

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

But Exec, do you not think that if losing the JR means losing on the "principles" (in effect), would this not mean a section 404 could not be applied for due to reasons outlined in the BBA argument?

Could you identify the part of the BBA's case that gives you that impression?

From my perspective at least there is no mechanism that could arise from the BBA's case that could have any effect on a s404.

A challenge to s404 itself isn't part of the BBA's case so the court won't make any determination in respect of it. As a s404 can't be used with the principles anyway I'm struggling to see how any ruling on the principles could have any effect in the consideration of s404.