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

[EXC]

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

One of my cases is currently with the Ombudsman having been turned down by the adjudicator

The reasoning given was farcical

They stated it was a non advised sale, despite the CCA clearly stating "We strongly advise you to take this insurance" (followed up by providing absolutely no details of terms/insurance policy/etc)

As stated previously, when you feel you are battling not only the banks, but also the FoS it becomes a little ridiculous

I'm not sure that an advised sale would necessarily be classified as such simply because those words appear on the CCA. I'm not sure but I think that the distinction between a distance sale and a face-to-face sale are also considerations when defining an advised and non-advised sale.

Have you looked for the FSA's & FOS's criteria for advised & non-advised?

[EXC]

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

There's the FSA's definition http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/factsheet_sales.pdf

[cappo]

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

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2011/02/...o-soar-245618/

hi p.f how,s it going my man?

[EXC]

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

The FOS have published complaints data that show upheld complaints for PPI running at 66% for the last quarter of 2010.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...rd-quarter.pdf

[EXC]

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

HSBC on PPI in their results published this morning and go into quite some detail.

From page 47 http://www.hsbc.com/1/PA_1_1_S5/cont...sbc2010arn.pdf

The last paragraph reveals that they are not one of the firms that the FSA requires to conduct a root cause analysis on face-to-face single premium sales.

Also it refers to the JR hearing as an 'application' hearing and so I'm still not entirely sure that the application for Judicial Review has actually been granted.

[leclerc]

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

My gut feeling is that Halifax aka LloydsBanking Group were one of those firms since they have more or less been disowning their PPI sales processes over the last few months.

[EXC]

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

My gut feeling is that Halifax aka LloydsBanking Group were one of those firms since they have more or less been disowning their PPI sales processes over the last few months.

Lloyds already said in their results that they are one and as it was Lloyds Banking Group's results I assume that'll include Halifax Legal Beagles Consumer Forum - View Single Post - Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold

[Class Act]

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

HSBC on PPI in their results published this morning and go into quite some detail.

From page 47 http://www.hsbc.com/1/PA_1_1_S5/cont...sbc2010arn.pdf

The last paragraph reveals that they are not one of the firms that the FSA requires to conduct a root cause analysis on face-to-face single premium sales.

Also it refers to the JR hearing as an 'application' hearing and so I'm still not entirely sure that the application for Judicial Review has actually been granted.

Do you think that the implications of the BBA winning, by not being on this report is strange? ie the potential costs to the HSBC group! Just strikes as odd that the "only"potential costs to the group are if they lose!!!

Turning this on its head then, do they believe that the potential costs to the Group are Zero if the BBA win???

[pompeyfaith]

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

http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/view/pr...s-cases-588517

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011...cial-ombudsman

[Chip Tuesday]

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

Sorry I haven't been on for ages guys, been swapping jobs etc so been busy... doesn't look like I've missed too much though... still no actual news regarding the JR?

CT

[EXC]

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

Turning this on its head then, do they believe that the potential costs to the Group are Zero if the BBA win???

I doubt it but they do have a requirement to disclose potential losses and they probably would have given PPI liabilities a mention in previous results which would still stand if they lose the JR.

I think it's interesting that they put a lot of emphasis a mixed outcome though.

[Class Act]

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

I doubt it but they do have a requirement to disclose potential losses and they probably would have given PPI liabilities a mention in previous results which would still stand if they lose the JR.

I think it's interesting that they put a lot of emphasis a mixed outcome though.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there!!! Some they will win on, others they will lose.

[EXC]

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

I think you have hit the nail on the head there!!! Some they will win on, others they will lose.

I have said this before - that it might not turn out to be a strictly win/lose situation.

For instance the BBA are asking the court to quash the entire PPI online resource but in their case they've only actually identified a couple of pages that they have any issue with.

[Class Act]

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

I have said this before - that it might not turn out to be a strictly win/lose situation.

For instance the BBA are asking the court to quash the entire PPI online resource but in their case they've only actually identified a couple of pages that they have any issue with.

Did they not also say in Court that they were not challenging ICOB/ICOBS mis sales, they were challenging the more complicated cases?? (whatever they are!)

[EXC]

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

Did they not also say in Court that they were not challenging ICOB/ICOBS mis sales, they were challenging the more complicated cases?? (whatever they are!)

They're not challenging ICOB or ICOBS or in fact any cases at all, only the principles, the root cause analysis requirement and sections of the online resource.

The FOS's counsel is certainly of the opinion that the judge only needs to consider deleting a few words of the online resource rather than the entire thing as the BBA are seeking to do:

''MR MALEK: My Lord, yesterday I went through the online resource and materials to show that the twofold test at page 159 is derived from various sources and not simply just plucked from the principles. We say there's nothing objectionable to referring to the principles
which even the BBA now accepts we are obliged to take into account.

At the end of this case your Lordship is going to have to consider, is there anything to quash here and what words would you be deleting from the online resource''