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

salary : £300 to £350 per year?

Salary of a solicitor

• Salaries for trainee solicitors start from about £15,000 to £17,000 a year.
• A qualified solicitor in a small practice might earn from £25,000 to £50,000, and a partner in a small firm may earn between £40,000 and £80,000.
• A partner in a large firm or working as head of an in-house legal department could earn £100,000 a year

[leclerc]

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

Sounds like a previous job application and that figure is definitely per week.

[cardinals]

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

I 'm very sure that will be £300,000 to £350,000 per annum given what is at stake.

[Angry Cat]

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

Sounds like a previous job application and that figure is definitely per week.

£18,200.00?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

I 'm very sure that will be £300,000 to £350,000 per annum given what is at stake.

The advert. is for a solicitor, not a barrister!

[EXC]

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

according to the info exc there only paying 300-350 (pounds or hundreds of thousands a year?) my job offer is withdrawn ha ha

I'll let you know if I spot anything circa £500k then.

As far as I know, in-house solicitors are paid very well in comparison to those in a practice or LLP. The solicitor that Amethyst & myself have used in the past (who was with an LLP) charged £600 an hour but then moved to an in-house position with Times Newspapers - and I doubt she earned less as a result.

[EXC]

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

From Lloyds Banking Group corporate results published this morning.

The last paragraph is particularly interesting in that it suggests that Lloyds and other banks have agreed in principle to conduct a root cause analysis of all branch sales of single premium PPI from 1 July 2007, apparently regardless of the outcome of the Judicial Review.


http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/me...BG_Results.pdf


''Following extensive scrutiny of the Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) market in recent years, the Financial
Services Authority issued its final policy statement on PPI complaints handling in August 2010. The application of
this policy, which has been challenged by the British Bankers’ Association in a judicial review, could in extremis
have a material effect on the Group’s financial position.

Payment protection insurance
There has been extensive scrutiny of the Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) market in recent years.
In October 2010, the UK Competition Commission (Competition Commission) confirmed its decision to prohibit the
active sale of PPI by a distributor to a customer within 7 days of a sale of credit. This followed the completion of its
formal investigation into the supply of PPI services (other than store card PPI) to non-business customers in the
UK in January 2009 and a referral of the proposed prohibition to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Following an
earlier decision to stop selling single premium PPI products, the Group ceased to offer PPI products to its
customers in July 2010.

On 1 July 2008, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) referred concerns regarding the handling of PPI
complaints to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) as an issue of wider implication. On 29 September 2009 and
9 March 2010, the FSA issued consultation papers on PPI complaints handling. The FSA proposed new guidance
on the fair assessment of a complaint and the calculation of redress and a new rule requiring firms to reassess
historically rejected complaints. The FSA published its Policy Statement on 10 August 2010, setting out a new set
of rules for PPI complaints handling and redress which had to be implemented by 1 December 2010.

On 8 October 2010, the British Bankers Association (BBA), the principal trade association for the UK banking
and financial services sector, filed an application for permission to seek judicial review against the FSA and the
FOS. The BBA is seeking an order quashing the FSA Policy Statement and an order quashing the decision of the
FOS to determine PPI sales in accordance with the guidance published on its website in November 2008. The
Judicial Review hearing was held in late January 2011 and the judgment (which may be subject to appeal) is
expected shortly.

This legal challenge has affected the implementation of the Policy Statement, since the challenge has called into
question the standards to be applied when assessing PPI complaints. As a result of that challenge, a large
number of complaints cannot be decided until the outcome of the legal challenge is clear and implemented.

The ultimate impact on the Group of the FSA's complaints handling policy (if implemented in full) and the FOS’s
most recent approach to PPI complaints could be material to the Group’s financial position, although the precise
effect can only be assessed once the legal proceedings have been finally determined and the steps the Group
may be required to take identified and implemented. In addition, it is not practicable to quantify the potential
financial impact of the implementation of the Policy Statement given the material uncertainties around, for
example, applicable time periods, the extent of application of root cause analysis, the treatment of evidence and
the ultimate emergence period for complaints, driven in large part by the activities of the claims management
companies, all of which will significantly affect complaints volumes, uphold rates and redress costs. No provision
has been made in these financial statements to reflect implementation of the FSA’s complaints handling policy in
its current form.

Following concerns expressed by the FSA, it announced in its statement on 29 September 2009 that several firms
had agreed to carry out reviews of past sales of single premium loan protection insurance. Lloyds Banking Group
has agreed in principle that it will undertake a review in relation to sales of single premium loan protection
insurance made through its branch network since 1 July 2007. The precise details of the review are still being
discussed with the FSA. The ultimate impact on Lloyds Banking Group of any review could be material but can
only be known at the conclusion of these discussions.''

[Amethyst]

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

What is the relevance of the 1st July 2007 date ?

[EXC]

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

What is the relevance of the 1st July 2007 date ?

I was wondering that myself. According the Sept 2009 FSA statement referred to by Lloyds, it looks like they chose sales for the previous 2 years with a view to going back further to 2005 - when the FSA took over insurance regulation.

So I think the 1 July 2007 date represents a reasonable period of time in which the need to go back to 2005 could be determined.

FSA unveils tough measures to protect PPI consumers

Notes for editors

''The firms reviewing face-to-face Single Premium Unsecured Personal Loan PPI sales represent more than 40% of gross written premiums in that sector. They have agreed to review past sales of these made since 1 July 2007. If material detriment is found, firms will review all such sales made since January 2005.''

[leclerc]

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

Beginnings of that was here:

FSA determined to see better practice in PPI sales
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
This might have had an impact as well
FSA sets out a principles-based future for general insurance regulation

[Class Act]

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

Does make you think though why the root cause analysis has not yet happened!!!

I dont trust the Banks one bit, and it appears they are awaiting the outcome of the JR now before going into this R C A;

[EXC]

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

Does make you think though why the root cause analysis has not yet happened!!!

I dont trust the Banks one bit, and it appears they are awaiting the outcome of the JR now before going into this R C A;

I would imagine that although Lloyds have agreed ''in principle'' to conduct the RCA (regardless of the JR), they are awaiting the outcome of the JR to establish the precise criteria by which the sales are determined.

As the banks seemed to have agreed that they will, it will be interesting to see from what point they have to go back from ie the date of the FSA statement of Sept 2009 or further forward to the outcome of the JR.

[Class Act]

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

I would imagine that although Lloyds have agreed ''in principle'' to conduct the RCA (regardless of the JR), they are awaiting the outcome of the JR to establish the precise criteria by which the sales are determined.

As the banks seemed to have agreed that they will, it will be interesting to see from what point they have to go back from ie the date of the FSA statement of Sept 2009 or further forward to the outcome of the JR.

The criteria is exactly why the JR was brought I imagine...because as I have stated before if the Banks etc can get away with no oral info to the client at the point of sale ie mailing is fine, then alot of complaints/sales may well be compliant/rejected.

We would still have ICOB/ICOBS and the gen law to go on though, which would mean consumers would still get some complaints upheld.

All this is on the BBA winning, lets stay positive and hope they wont!!! As no one knows the outcome (unless your NLP!!!!) lets hope!!!

[The Debt Star]

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

Who said this would be over before Christmas? yeah, right....

[EXC]

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

Who said this would be over before Christmas? yeah, right....

If you're talking about the final conclusion of the Judicial Review, it was me and I stand by it.

The only thing that might put a spanner in the works is the High Court judicial calendar whereby the courts don't sit or consider judgments during August & September Judiciary of England and Wales | The legal year and term dates | Term dates

[mids]

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

If you're talking about the final conclusion of the Judicial Review, it was me and I stand by it.

The only thing that might put a spanner in the works is the High Court judicial calendar whereby the courts don't sit or consider judgments during August & September Judiciary of England and Wales | The legal year and term dates | Term dates

Which Christmas are you standing by?