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

[di30]

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

Someone over at MSE received a letter with an enclosed cheque of £100 for the inconvenience, due to the JR.

The cheque is supposed to be from the FOS! :tinysmile_aha_t:

I understand people have been receiving letters but not cheques from the FOS as well.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...60775&page=778

Post number: 15558
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

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.

If you taken a few accounts with the same bank, then realistically one SAR should cover all. x

[leclerc]

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

Someone over at MSE received a letter with an enclosed cheque of £100 for the inconvenience, due to the JR.

The cheque is supposed to be from the FOS! :tinysmile_aha_t:

I understand people have been receiving letters but not cheques from the FOS as well.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...60775&page=778

Post number: 15558
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------



If you taken a few accounts with the same bank, then realistically one SAR should cover all. x

Can you ask them to write up the wording of the letter Di(cos I am too lazy to log into MSE and ask :o )?

[di30]

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

Can you ask them to write up the wording of the letter Di(cos I am too lazy to log into MSE and ask :o )?

LOL yeah I will do., will do that now.
And done!

[di30]

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

Right the poster from MSE will kindly post up with the details tomorrow, he is at work now, so I will post it up as soon as I receive it.

[debtisbad]

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

Yes, claim. I did so for a pre 2000 card and won. It took 8 months. Also for a more recent card, I won that also.

[SoapyBubbles]

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

Is it a good or bad thing that

(a) the outcome seems to be taking forever

and

(b) there seems to be very little information at present from anywhere about the potential outcome.

[pompeyfaith]

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

there seems to be very little information at present from anywhere about the potential outcome.

Well we can all speculate , but the fact of matter is no one will know the outcome until Mr Justice Ouseley hands it down.

[cappo]

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

Well we can all speculate , but the fact of matter is no one will know the outcome until Mr Justice Ouseley hands it down.


[/COLOR][/LEFT]

it,s taking a while for an expedited judgement, i thought we,d have had some news already, with the b.c we knew straight away, being an optimist guys might this be a good thing? i assume if duncan was going to tie up this judgement restricting a banks right to appeal he wouid have to consult legal chambers? which wouid take time,:beagle: only a thought!

[cappo]

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

any ideas or opinions on this(not rude or derogatory)



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...s-2250078.html

[EXC]

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

[quote=cappo;205111 with the b.c we knew straight away[/quote]

If you mean the bank charges test case, the first instance judgment actually took 74 days from the end of the hearing. So far we're on day 54 with the JR.

I spoke with listings yesterday and I understand that Justice Ousley has finished writing his judgment and so now it's just a case of scheduling the hand down hearing, subject to the availability of the lawyers for the four parties. So not long now.

[cappo]

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

If you mean the bank charges test case, the first instance judgment actually took 74 days from the end of the hearing. So far we're on day 54 with the JR.

I spoke with listings yesterday and I understand that Justice Ousley has finished writing his judgment and so now it's just a case of scheduling the hand down hearing, subject to the availability of the lawyers for the four parties. So not long now.

that long,it,s an interesting one EXC i hope for a good result if we don,t get one a lot of my cases will be down the toilet mind you i have read on here it might not make much difference.:beagle:

[MBD23]

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

Small businesses feel FSCS funding squeeze

The mis-selling of financial products by big firms means levies paid into the FSCS by businesses are rocketing, and low-risk small insurance brokers are being hit hard

• • Share
  • 
  • 
• Comments (2)

A dog's life: vets selling pet insurance have been hit by rising compensation funding. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian Should a small business be made to pick up the tab for its much-bigger peers' mistakes?
Insurance brokers have been forced to pay a series of "devastating" increases in funding to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) in the wake of the mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI), with levies increasing from an average of £3,000 in 2008 to £211,000 in 2011.
Their trade body, the British Insurance Brokers' Association, is calling for regulation to focus on the limited risks posed by brokers rather than categorising them with firms from other sectors responsible for mis-selling.
The FSCS scheme exists to provide financial protection to consumers if authorised financial services firms become insolvent. The funding model of the scheme splits the regulated community into five broad classes, of which insurance is one. Within it there are two sub-classes: insurers and intermediaries.
Biba says there are 14,000 insurance intermediaries in the latter sub-class, of which only 3,500 are insurance brokers, and many are small businesses with limited incomes. The rest are firms who don't have insurance broking as their core business, such as banks, independent financial advisers, mortgage brokers and even vets (think of those pet insurance leaflets on the desk in your vet's reception).
Biba believes this categorisation is too broad, leading to insurance brokers being lumped in with the lenders and credit brokers who mis-sold PPI, which has led to the FSCS demanding massive increases in funding from all 14,000 firms.
"The impact on insurance brokers is devastating," says a Biba spokesman. "A firm with £20m commission income paid a £3,000 levy in 2008; £16,000 in 2009; £125,000 in 2010; and in 2011 will be paying £211,000. Firms of all sizes have been exposed to this degree of increasing levy."
Biba wants to separate the 3,500 insurance brokers from the secondary sellers, and end the system of cross-subsidiaries that sees the brokers exposed to the possibility of funding compensation in the banking sector.
Biba is also calling for a fresh approach from the new regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, to focus much more on the limited regulatory risks posed by insurance brokers. Steve White, Biba's head of compliance and training, says: "The research highlights just how out of line with the rest of Europe the regulatory costs to UK brokers are.
"Not only are the direct costs, such as the fees and levies, the highest by a wide margin, but the indirect costs bear no relation to those elsewhere in the EU."
For small business and consumers, rising industry costs are a real problem: if smaller firms go to the wall they leave a gap in the availability of local services used by consumers. Is your small business in an industry facing rising costs of this type?

[cappo]

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

Small businesses feel FSCS funding squeeze

The mis-selling of financial products by big firms means levies paid into the FSCS by businesses are rocketing, and low-risk small insurance brokers are being hit hard

• • Share
  • 
  • 
• Comments (2)

A dog's life: vets selling pet insurance have been hit by rising compensation funding. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian Should a small business be made to pick up the tab for its much-bigger peers' mistakes?
Insurance brokers have been forced to pay a series of "devastating" increases in funding to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) in the wake of the mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI), with levies increasing from an average of £3,000 in 2008 to £211,000 in 2011.
Their trade body, the British Insurance Brokers' Association, is calling for regulation to focus on the limited risks posed by brokers rather than categorising them with firms from other sectors responsible for mis-selling.
The FSCS scheme exists to provide financial protection to consumers if authorised financial services firms become insolvent. The funding model of the scheme splits the regulated community into five broad classes, of which insurance is one. Within it there are two sub-classes: insurers and intermediaries.
Biba says there are 14,000 insurance intermediaries in the latter sub-class, of which only 3,500 are insurance brokers, and many are small businesses with limited incomes. The rest are firms who don't have insurance broking as their core business, such as banks, independent financial advisers, mortgage brokers and even vets (think of those pet insurance leaflets on the desk in your vet's reception).
Biba believes this categorisation is too broad, leading to insurance brokers being lumped in with the lenders and credit brokers who mis-sold PPI, which has led to the FSCS demanding massive increases in funding from all 14,000 firms.
"The impact on insurance brokers is devastating," says a Biba spokesman. "A firm with £20m commission income paid a £3,000 levy in 2008; £16,000 in 2009; £125,000 in 2010; and in 2011 will be paying £211,000. Firms of all sizes have been exposed to this degree of increasing levy."
Biba wants to separate the 3,500 insurance brokers from the secondary sellers, and end the system of cross-subsidiaries that sees the brokers exposed to the possibility of funding compensation in the banking sector.
Biba is also calling for a fresh approach from the new regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, to focus much more on the limited regulatory risks posed by insurance brokers. Steve White, Biba's head of compliance and training, says: "The research highlights just how out of line with the rest of Europe the regulatory costs to UK brokers are.
"Not only are the direct costs, such as the fees and levies, the highest by a wide margin, but the indirect costs bear no relation to those elsewhere in the EU."
For small business and consumers, rising industry costs are a real problem: if smaller firms go to the wall they leave a gap in the availability of local services used by consumers. Is your small business in an industry facing rising costs of this type?

it doesn,t seem fair for everyone to have to clear up the banks mess does it,trouble is it goes right across the board doesn,t it?:tinysmile_cry_t:

[debtisbad]

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

I suppose the mis-selling rests with the company who sells e.g. the vet?

[EXC]

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

I suppose the mis-selling rests with the company who sells e.g. the vet?

Exactly. I think BIBA have a good point as it's the banks who are largely responsible for mis-selling PPI and as such should pay the lions share of the FSCS levy.