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

[Amethyst]

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

Competition Commission involvement

Further consultation on Draft PPI Order (2011) - Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)

PPI Remittal

Further consultation on Draft PPI Order (2011)

Published: 14.02.11
Files open as PDF documents in a new browser window.
Adobe PDF Reader is required to view reports: Download Adobe Reader here

Notice of intention to make an Order (2011)

Draft PPI Order (2011)

Draft explanatory Note to accompany the PPI Order (2011)

Comparison with Draft PPI Order (2010)

Note of responses to the consultation on the Draft PPI Order (2010) and accompanying documents



Draft Order 2011 is most worth reading

Consultation responses response by the CC is fun

Article 3—Obligation to provide information about PPI
Articles 3.1 and 3.2
25. It was suggested that the requirement to include information about the monthly cost for every £100 of monthly benefit would not assist consumers. Similar submissions had been made during the original inquiry. We considered these submissions and saw no evidence that required us to depart from our view in the 2009 report, namely that the provision of this information to consumers would help consumers understand the price of PPI and to search more effectively for the best value policy for their protection needs when the common currency of monthly cost for every £100 of monthly benefit became standard information which was included in marketing materials, Personal PPI Quotes and Annual Reviews.

[EXC]

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

So the 7 day prohibition element of the order comes into effect in a year.

[MBD23]

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

mainly yes but when they fail to provide the client with the T&Cs or properly draw their attention to the importance of reading it then that can happen in a non advised sale as well.

Doesn’t ICOB/ICOBS and proving a breach only apply to advice sales?

[cappo]

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

So the 7 day prohibition element of the order comes into effect in a year.

that,s what i heard exc 2012, got to be good for the consumer i suspect the ppi will finally die then.

[leclerc]

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!

NatWest brought in Duty of Care Checklists(DOCC) so if they provide this in the paperwork for the loan(I suspect they may not in every case) then this should show proof that they went through this. However, it may prove that the overwhelming evidence is that they were completed post sale(tick box jobbie) or are complete fabrications.

[cappo]

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

NatWest brought in Duty of Care Checklists(DOCC) so if they provide this in the paperwork for the loan(I suspect they may not in every case) then this should show proof that they went through this. However, it may prove that the overwhelming evidence is that they were completed post sale(tick box jobbie) or are complete fabrications.

forgive my ignorance leclerc are the post sale tick box applications more or less missold than advised sales(in your opinion)

[leclerc]

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

I was referring to the actual processes within the sale of the loan rather than other tick boxes/online loan applications.
It it's post sale then the sale has been made. Can you clarify what you mean by post sale?

[The Debt Star]

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

forgive my ignorance leclerc are the post sale tick box applications more or less missold than advised sales(in your opinion)

They are in my experience because how did they advise you of the policy terms and conditions? How did they ask if you already had cover or get find it elsewhere? The tickbox and telephone selling of PPI was massive. But at point of sale, not post.

[cappo]

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

I was referring to the actual processes within the sale of the loan rather than other tick boxes/online loan applications.
It it's post sale then the sale has been made. Can you clarify what you mean by post sale?

sorry leclerc just meant application forms that you have to return in the post,no worries though i was just curious really.

[cappo]

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

just out of curiosity guys(again) do the lenders still send the postal applications out ,that was what quite a few of my claims are for as ds stated how do or did they do a broad questionaire regd suitability etc as when you applied for and got your credit card through the post upon successful application all you got back was your card not t&c,s ,suitability questionaires etc

[leclerc]

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

just out of curiosity guys(again) do the lenders still send the postal applications out ,that was what quite a few of my claims are for as ds stated how do or did they do a broad questionaire regd suitability etc as when you applied for and got your credit card through the post upon successful application all you got back was your card not t&c,s ,suitability questionaires etc

They would do on some internet applications I would expect. It is unlikely that on internet applications that any due diligence would be done with regards to eligibility for PPI.

[leclerc]

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

Am just reading the JR transcripts now and the obvious question is why was there no judicial review in August 2008 when the FOS introduced its guidelines for dealing with PPI complaints(they might answer the question as I read it through)?

[di30]

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

Am just reading the JR transcripts now and the obvious question is why was there no judicial review in August 2008 when the FOS introduced its guidelines for dealing with PPI complaints(they might answer the question as I read it through)?

Good point leclerc, why wait until now, almost 3 years on? exactly.

[EXC]

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

Am just reading the JR transcripts now and the obvious question is why was there no judicial review in August 2008 when the FOS introduced its guidelines for dealing with PPI complaints(they might answer the question as I read it through)?

This point was made repeatedly by the FOS and FSA during the hearing and as far as I know was never really addressed by the BBA - at least during the hearing.

The BBA did anticipate this question in their initial application (at page 66) as follows:

''Since FOS is taking individual decisions in accordance with the FOS guidance (as set out in Leenders, and as is common ground), it would be perfectly proper for test applications for Judicial Review to be brought in respect of such decisions. By bringing the application against the generic guidance, the claimant is adopting a convenient and sensible case management approach, ensuring that the same challenge is brought but avoiding, potentially, a multiplicity of applications for Judicial Review by different claimants.''

''It would serve no sensible purpose to require this application to be amended to add individual challenges of for fresh challenges, or for fresh applications to be brought , to enable the same challenge to be made.''

It all sounds a bit woolly to me though as the BBA are really saying that the reason no challenges to either individual FOS decisions or to the FOS guidance at the time is that they were somehow able to predict a generic challenge some 2 years hence.

The issue of time barring was put to Justice Ousley by the FOS and he answered as follows:

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: Just on the delay point. If the ombudsman is in error in his approach in a particular way, which may require some formulating and you may say it has not yet been properly formulated, but if there is an error of approach which can be formulated and that error is not merely one that existed in the past but is one the ombudsman intends to continue doing, why isn't this [the Judicial Review] as good a means of resolving it and correcting it as opposed to a decision going through the ombudsman process? The concluded decision of the ombudsman and a challenge to that decision in the court in which the court comes to precisely the same view.

[cappo]

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

This point was made repeatedly by the FOS and FSA during the hearing and as far as I know was never really addressed by the BBA - at least during the hearing.

The BBA did anticipate this question in their initial application (at page 66) as follows:

''Since FOS is taking individual decisions in accordance with the FOS guidance (as set out in Leenders, and as is common ground), it would be perfectly proper for test applications for Judicial Review to be brought in respect of such decisions. By bringing the application against the generic guidance, the claimant is adopting a convenient and sensible case management approach, ensuring that the same challenge is brought but avoiding, potentially, a multiplicity of applications for Judicial Review by different claimants.''

''It would serve no sensible purpose to require this application to be amended to add individual challenges of for fresh challenges, or for fresh applications to be brought , to enable the same challenge to be made.''

It all sounds a bit woolly to me though as the BBA are really saying that the reason no challenges to either individual FOS decisions or to the FOS guidance at the time is that they were somehow able to predict a generic challenge some 2 years hence.

The issue of time barring was put to Justice Ousley by the FOS and he answered as follows:

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: Just on the delay point. If the ombudsman is in error in his approach in a particular way, which may require some formulating and you may say it has not yet been properly formulated, but if there is an error of approach which can be formulated and that error is not merely one that existed in the past but is one the ombudsman intends to continue doing, why isn't this [the Judicial Review] as good a means of resolving it and correcting it as opposed to a decision going through the ombudsman process? The concluded decision of the ombudsman and a challenge to that decision in the court in which the court comes to precisely the same view.

don,t know quite what his honour means with the last bit exc but i,m not really up on legal terminology,good post exc.