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

[cappo]

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

apologies if this is a repeat of something thats been posted on here before i know EXC posted up a KPMG report


http://www.kpmg.com/UK/en/IssuesAndI...45BILLION.aspx

[NLP]

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

nothing new to really see.

writing. wall. etc.

[MBD23]

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

my view NLp for what it is worth is with you invested in 5 cmc's , you probably got more at stake here than anyone. And more to lose. Obviously very wound up by the whole affair, and its coming out sideways in attempting to wind other people up. If the decision goes against you then you will be able to come on here and really get it out your system about winding others up how you told them all along the banks would win, whilst inside being the most wound up person of all. I know you heard early and mitigated your losses but that doesnt really change much does it. Seems a bitter and twisted perverse sense of humour brought on by stress&boredom
Just my opinion

[MBD23]

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

Nicola Northway



The controversy surrounding payment protection *insurance (PPI) dates back to 1998 when Which? magazine published a report alleging that policies were regularly *being mis-sold to *consumers. It claimed customers who bought PPI - which is used to cover payments on *credit cards, loans and mortgages
in cases of illness or unemployment - were rarely able to compare prices and terms or switch providers, and were often unaware that they could purchase *insurance from other companies.
Over the next seven years similar allegations were made in the national press, but the issue only really took off when the Citizens Advice Bureau *issued a super-complaint to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) in 2005. The OFT *carried out a market *investigation, and two years later it formally referred the *matter to the Competition Commission.




The big bang came in January 2009 with the publication of the commission’s final report on PPI, which concluded that there were *”serious *deficiencies” in the competitive process for the sale of PPI.
Some of the recommendations had a big impact on *companies selling PPI, particularly the major UK banks. They included a ban on selling PPI to customers at point-of-sale (companies would have to wait at least seven days to make an *approach) and a ban on selling single-premium PPI *policies, where the premium is paid in one upfront payment.
While the report sent shockwaves through the financial services community it was *Barclays that emerged as the *forerunner in challenging it. While Barclays voluntarily stopped selling single-*premium policies after the *report was published, what most concerned it was the point-of-sale ban. Its *opposition was coordinated by group competition law managing director Nicola Northway, the former Ofgem general counsel who joined
the bank in 2005.
“When the commission came out with its final report we were *concerned about several points, chiefly the prohibition on selling PPI at point-of-sale,” says Northway. “Obviously people should be *allowed to go away and shop around, but most like to take out insurance when they get credit. We felt taking away this option would reduce *competition.”
Barclays accepted all the recommendations in the *commission report except two - the point-of-sale ban and the scope of the market definition made by the commission.
Recommendations by the commission to remedy an adverse effect on competition or customers can be pursued under Section 134 of the
Enterprise Act 2002.
Northway and her team decided to appeal the recommendations under *Section 179 of the same act. Companies have just two months from the publication
of the final report to lodge an *appeal, so the team had to move fast. And things were further *complicated by the fact that from a legal perspective, they were in uncharted *terrain.
Challenging times
On the day the appeal was lodged, no company had successfully challenged recommendations made in a final report by the commission, although in April 2009 Tesco successfully appealed against recommendations made in a market *investigation into the supply of *groceries in the UK.
“We moved first, so in many ways we were in new territory,” says Northway. “That was exciting for us - it was nice to be at the cutting edge of
competition.”
The five-day hearing began on 7 September 2009. *Northway was responsible for pulling together the bank’s response to the recommendations, working with colleagues from the regulatory, compliance and consumer departments.
“Things aren’t straight forward competition anymore,” she says. “We can’t say, ’this is a competition matter and we’re *running it’. The scope of the market studies means there’s a lot of crossover with other *departments.”
Northway also coordinated the bank’s legal advisers. The bank turned to longstanding adviser Clifford Chance, with a team led by global antitrust *litigation chief Elizabeth *Morony and competition *partner Oliver Bretz.
When Northway joined she was the only competition lawyer at the bank. Fortunately, by the time the PPI *issue had taken off, the team included five lawyers.
The judgment was handed down in October 2009 and Barclays became only the second company to successfully appeal commission recommendations at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, forcing the commission to reassess its stance on the point-of-sale prohibition. Its appeal against the scope of the investigation was not upheld.
“Often, people think it’s more exciting to be in a law firm doing competition - they think all we do is sit around *advising external counsel,”
says Northway.
Despite the success of the appeal, the banks had another *setback in May 2010 when the commission published its *provisional decision on the point-of-sale issue, in which it *continued to *support prohibition. This was reiterated last November when the commission’s draft remedies order on PPI again supported the ban. The final remedies order is *expected in February 2011.

[EXC]

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

Reading the above you'd be forgiven for thinking that Nicola Northway and Barclays had actually been successful in appealing the Competition Commission's PPI point-of-sale-ban.

''The judgment was handed down in October 2009 and Barclays became only the second company to successfully appeal commission recommendations at the Competition Appeal Tribunal......

Barclays' case was based on the notion that the CC failed to account for the ''inconvenience'' that consumers would endure by not being able to buy PPI at the point-of-sale.

But the ''success'' only meant that the CC had to reconsider this aspect of their decision, which they did and came to precisely the same conclusion.

Payment protection insurance: Point-of-sale ban will go ahead | Money | The Guardian

So far from being ''successful'', the appeal was an unmitigated and expensive failure.

[MattyA]

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

It's disappointing that the FOS felt concerned enough to write to Claims Management Companies about the delays but not individual claimants.

I got three letters from the FOS yesterday,re three seperate complaints, informing of delays in complaint handling due to the BBA action and advising that it could take in excess of a year for some cases to be resolved......I have a number of complaints with them so Im expecting more copies of the same letter anytime soon.

[cappo]

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

I got three letters from the FOS yesterday,re three seperate complaints, informing of delays in complaint handling due to the BBA action and advising that it could take in excess of a year for some cases to be resolved......I have a number of complaints with them so Im expecting more copies of the same letter anytime soon.

now found out fos are putting me on fast track due to i,ll health as there so busy i still think it,ll be a while though.

[di30]

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

Probably already posted up, and this is about a fortnight old.

http://news.scotsman.com/news/Lloyds...for.6726208.jp

Lloyds and RBS worst for serving the public who bailed them out.

A SHARP rise in the number of complaints about Britain's banks was reported in the second half of last year, with taxpayer-backed RBS and Lloyds Banking Group named the biggest culprits.
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) yesterday reported a 15 per cent increase in the number of complaints about financial services firms in the final six months of 2010.

More to follow on link posted above.........

[cappo]

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

Probably already posted up, and this is about a fortnight old.

http://news.scotsman.com/news/Lloyds...for.6726208.jp

Lloyds and RBS worst for serving the public who bailed them out.

A SHARP rise in the number of complaints about Britain's banks was reported in the second half of last year, with taxpayer-backed RBS and Lloyds Banking Group named the biggest culprits.
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) yesterday reported a 15 per cent increase in the number of complaints about financial services firms in the final six months of 2010.

More to follow on link posted above.........

i think it,s all about making a huge profit now di,i don,t think they care that the taxpayer bailed them out, you never used to hear so much of this poor treatment years ago did you i don,t know if it did,nt happen or was swept under the carpet.

[pompeyfaith]

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

Years ago a lot of us where either paid in cash or paid weekly into a bank account and each bank had a bank manager so issues were sorted at local level.

Internet was also not such a big deal then so word never spread as much as it does now indeed the internet has empowered the british citizen and business is or should understand that it can no longer get away with ripping off the british citizen as they will see a big dent in there profits.

Business should be working in tune with the british citizen not against it.

[di30]

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

Wherever I go there seems to be that letters have been received from the FOS that it could take a year yet!

However, was just catching up over at MSE etc, and someone had posted up that they are dealing with Natwest, and they were told the JR issue had finished on the 28 Feb and that the banks lost, but surely we would have heard something by now, wrong info given to the person I expect.

Post number: 928


http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...786416&page=47

[di30]

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

However we do know from the media that if the banks lose then yes they would have to possibly pay out to 3 odd million customers, but not came across anything as yet about the verdict, which we again know can take some time.

[pompeyfaith]

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

Corrected as we do not want everyone getting there hopes up.

Regards

[di30]

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

Hopefully the poster will get back and let us know since you posted PF, cheers.
And seems like he or she may have just been misleaded perhaps with the wrong info?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Corrected as we do not want everyone getting there hopes up.

Regards

Totally agree.

[cappo]

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

Hopefully the poster will get back and let us know since you posted PF, cheers.
And seems like he or she may have just been misleaded perhaps with the wrong info?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------



Totally agree.

haven,t heard anything yet guys and are trawling all the sites to try to find out some info, tried to get onto a government website yesterday re duncan ouesleys decision about the j.r and got a little bit which suggested that he,d claimed the j.r was "unargueable" but i cannot confirm that.