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

[leclerc]

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

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.

Try the word Judicial Review, Fawcett Society cos that judgement was about the government budget and women

EDIT: Gender-Equity Group Cant Challenge U.K. Budget, Judge Rules - Businessweek

[cappo]

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

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

Regards

i know it might be totally the wrong idea but couid no news be good news,so the old pun goes

[leclerc]

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

Di, I think it was a misread, ie that the JR finished 28th January and that they rang in February. Note that there is a full stop after 28th . It's a grammatical error on their part.

I would add that the subsequent part of the post states about having guidelines to deal with PPI which means that clearly it wasn't over and completed since they would have said what guidelines that they were talking about.

[di30]

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

Di, I think it was a misread, ie that the JR finished 28th January and that they rang in February. Note that there is a full stop after 28th . It's a grammatical error on their part.

I would add that the subsequent part of the post states about having guidelines to deal with PPI which means that clearly it wasn't over and completed since they would have said what guidelines that they were talking about.

Oh yes I see now, lol trust me to miss that.

[EXC]

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

This is the FOS delay letter as sent to one Claims Management Company:

http://www.crystallegal.com/blog/wp-...S-Document.pdf

[cardinals]

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

Not JR related but from 'The Lawyer' magazine:

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.

[leclerc]

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

I've got a figure of Barclays from 2002 re PPI policies....is that figure in the JR documents?

oh God! it's a rehash of this story from 2004

Barclays exposed over huge insurance rip-off | Money | The Guardian

I hate repeats.

[leclerc]

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

Or possibly from this: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/rep...869annexea.pdf

[di30]

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

So "IF" the FSA did win, even though its stated 3 million odd cases could be re-opened, I assume that would not include companies that were not regulated/governed by the FSA?

Just double checking on this.

[EXC]

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

So "IF" the FSA did win, even though its stated 3 million odd cases could be re-opened, I assume that would not include companies that were not regulated/governed by the FSA?

Just double checking on this.

It would include all companies by default. You cannot sell PPI or any insurance unless you're regulated by the FSA.

[EXC]

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

From the Citizens Advice Bureau's response to HM Treasury & BIS 'A new approach to financial regulation: Consultation on reforming the consumer credit regime'.

''Whilst the extension of rule-making powers to the consumer credit regulator would be welcome, we believe that it is important that lessons are learnt from the FSA’s use of these powers. For example, when we raised concerns about the cost and effectiveness of payment protection insurance in our 2005 supercomplaint, it took a long time for the FSA to consult on more detailed rules to tackle the problems we identified. It is disappointing that these have not come into effect yet. Initially, the FSA were unwilling to admit that their rules were not working to protect consumers. The length of time it took the FSA to act has, in our view, allowed banks to continue to mis-sell payment protection insurance and to deny consumers the redress they deserved. Indeed, we are concerned that if the FSA lose the judicial review that the BBA have initiated on the PPI complaints handling policy statement, then the whole recent history of principle-based regulation will have proved to have failed to protect consumers.''

[chrissiej]

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

Just read this thread - which took a while! I have not made any claims for missold PPI although I have had PPI on various credit cards over the years which I cancelled when I realised what a waste of money they are. Could anyone advise me:

- is it worth making a claim for missold PPI?
- what are the time limits, if there are any, from the date you cancelled the policy to making a claim?
- how far back should my claim go - right to the beginning as per penalty charges?
- would I add interest to the claim as per penalty charges?
- would an SAR produce all the information I need to see what I paid in premiums and when?

Many thanks to anyone who can point me in the right direction

[di30]

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

Hi Chrissy

If mis sold the PPI for any reason then give it a go.

A few of mine are from the late 90's, and its still currently sitting with the bank now, they have not rejected it anyway and I'm sure they would have by now to be honest.

There are lots of others on here too that are or have made successful reclaims from earlier years, and if its only recently you were aware of the mis selling, and its been some years since you taken out the account, then that is not your fault.
Some companies will come back and say there is a time barring of 6 years, but you need to make them aware if you had known earlier then you would have pursued this earlier - but have only recently became aware of the mis selling of the PPI.

An SAR is useful to request for if you've no paperwork on this at all.
You can still continue to make a reclaim, if you have the account numbers then that is a good start.

Interest will add up over time, but think it may work different to that of penalty charges, but you could post up the figures when you have them or if you already have them and these will be checked out for you on here.

My opinion is, give it a go.

[di30]

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

It would include all companies by default. You cannot sell PPI or any insurance unless you're regulated by the FSA.

Cheers for that EXC.

[chrissiej]

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

Thanks di, I will wait for the replies to my SAR's re the credit cards and see if the info is included - if not then I will write and tell them they have left it out. I am not sure if I actually need to make another SAR re PPI specifically but will test the water with a couple first.