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

[di30]

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

Directly from the BBA website.

http://www.bba.org.uk/media/article/...udicial-review

Judgement handed down on BBA judicial review

“On behalf of its members, the BBA requested a judicial review of the way in which the industry should handle complaints about PPI sales, as set out in the Financial Services Authority's policy statement.

“Whilst the UK banking industry has to date implemented every reform on PPI sales and complaints handling required by the regulators, the additional requirements in the policy statement effectively apply new standards to past sales, which we believe go beyond the rules and regulatory requirements which were developed by the regulator over time.

“It was due to the widespread concerns that the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service had not properly applied the law in this area – and only having exhausted all other avenues for resolving the underlying dispute that a judicial review was sought.

“We are disappointed with today’s judgment and now need to consider the details of it very carefully as well as next steps, including whether it would be appropriate to apply for permission to appeal.

“Any complaints that are directly affected by the judicial review and therefore can not be decided will continue to be placed on hold until the next steps have been decided. We will continue to work closely with the FSA to ensure that all complaints are appropriately handled and customers are not disadvantaged. Customers who are considering making a complaint or who have a specific query about an existing complaint should contact their bank in the first instance.”

[mids]

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

Directly from the BBA website.


“

“Any complaints that are directly affected by the judicial review and therefore can not be decided will continue to be placed on hold until the next steps have been decided. ”

Still on hold??:tinysmile_cry_t:

[Footynut]

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

I grant permission to argue all 3 grounds but dismiss them.

What does this mean??

[Paul210]

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

I grant permission to argue all 3 grounds but dismiss them.

What does this mean??

the hearing was 2 parts. permission to request JR then the JR itself, hes effectively saying BBA were allowed to have JR but that he dismisses it having heard and considered both sides argument.

[cappo]

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

now got a tesco authority form in guys this morning only £164.00 but it,s a start you hopefully will hear from LLoyds now di now put my morgan stanley into fos so hopefully that and capital one which is with the ombudsman shouid now be re assessed under the new rules and regs

[di30]

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

now got a tesco authority form in guys this morning only £164.00 but it,s a start you hopefully will hear from LLoyds now di now put my morgan stanley into fos so hopefully that and capital one which is with the ombudsman shouid now be re assessed under the new rules and regs

Thats' good Cappo, well done!

Yes it would make sense now for all banks to get on with the complaints, fingers crossed for all.

Good luck on your Morgan Stanley case too.

[stevesouth33]

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

Just read the judgment from start to finish and there is a lot of useful information, what is remarkable though is some of the language the judge uses, in places he talks of grave doubts as to the usage of certain documents by Lord Pannick (BBA). He also in many places talks of the contradictions in the banks contentions. The fundamental thing for me is that the whole ethos of the judgments is wholly supportive of the FSA and FOS. Lor Pannick may indeed now be panicking. I cannot see how any 'appeal' of any type can appear as anything other than churlish, but then the banks really don't seem to care so much about how they look. Dick Turpin at least had the courtesy to wear a mask, the banks really are arrogant and blatant.

The FSA really shoudl use the judgment as an opportunity to deploy all measures they have available firstly to support the FOS who are lamost in meltdown, but also to compel the banks to immediately start clearing their backlog irrespective of the outcome of any 'appeal' whether made or not.

[di30]

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

Your a quick reader Steve, but yes good point.

I am reading in parts.

[stevesouth33]

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

I also thought it was very interesting that the BBA response was 'dissapointment' as to the outcome of the Judicial Review that they requested. Historically they have always been very forthright in their continued pursuit to me 'dissapointment' personalises the reaction in a way and does suggested maybe just a hint of defeat. I really think the circa £5billion they may have to pay out would fade into complete insignificance when compared to the profits that have made and the commission their employees earned for a product that in the vast majority of cases was never claimed upon.

[pompeyfaith]

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

Steve,

And not forgetting all the secret commissions the banks have made out of the insurance companies for selling the defunct product to its customers.

That alone must run into millions

[di30]

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13143819

20 April 2011 Last updated at 12:48


Q&A: What now for payment protection insurance?


The UK's banks have lost an attempt to thwart new regulations on how they should sell payment protection insurance (PPI).
Crucially, the rules also lay down how the banks should deal with past cases of potential mis-selling of PPI, which could lead to an extra compensation bill running into billions of pounds.
The High Court heard a judicial review brought principally by the British Bankers' Association (BBA) against the recently updated rules of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
The judges rejected the BBA's arguments that the rules were unfair because they were retrospective.

So, what happens now?
Possibly not much yet.
The BBA has 21 days in which to decide to appeal. In the meantime individual banks are still putting on hold many of the new PPI complaints that are being lodged with them.
If an appeal goes ahead, then thousands of new complaints will continue to pile up.

What if the banks give in?
Under the FSA's new rules, banks and other lenders such as credit card companies will have to be much more careful about how they sell new PPI policies to borrowers.
Separately, the Competition Commission is bringing in new rules which will stop lenders selling PPI at the point when they grant a loan.
So the whole business faces a severe restriction anyway.

What about the compensation?
This is the really big issue.
The banks were told two years ago to re-examine complaints they had already rejected.
The new rules suggest that additionally they will have to contact all past PPI customers - even those who have never complained.
The FSA estimated last year that if about 20% of those responded, the industry could be landed with an extra compensation bill of £2.7bn, plus administration costs of up to £315m.
In the recent court hearings, that potential bill for the industry was put even higher, at about £4.5bn.

So how many people will all this involve?
The FSA estimated that its new measures would boost the expected number of complaints to 550,000 a year for the next five years - in other words 2.75 million.
But that was based on the 20% response rate mentioned above.
Clearly there is scope for many more people to complain, and for this to cost banks and other lenders much more.

How much compensation is likely to be paid?
Across the whole industry, no-one knows. It is all informed guess work so far.
But the FSA estimated that someone who had been mis-sold a single-premium policy where they paid all the cost up-front, might be repaid an average of £1,800.
Someone who had bought a policy requiring regular premiums would receive on average £900.

So, what should I do if I think I was mis-sold PPI?
If you still have the paperwork, look back at all your loans and see if there was any evidence you bought a PPI policy.
Check the details of the PPI policy itself, if you have it. Ask yourself some questions:

• Did you realise at the time you were buying this insurance?

• Were you told (falsely) you had to buy it?
• Did it really cover you in the first place? (Self- employed people, for example, are not covered by PPI)
• Did you even need it?

If you think you have grounds for complaint, write to the firm which sold the policy and lodge your complaint.
If it is rejected, or nothing happens within eight weeks, you can complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
What will the FOS do?
It can look at your case again.
It received 100,000 such complaints in the last financial year - and upheld about 75% in favour of the customers.
It is currently receiving about 5,000 PPI complaints a week, so a backlog is building up very quickly.

[leclerc]

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

attached

Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 999 (Admin)

Case No: CO/10619/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 20/04/2011

Before :

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

THE QUEEN on the application of BRITISH BANKERS ASSOCIATION

Claimant

- and -

(1) THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY

(2) THE FINANCIAL OMBUDSMAN SERVICE

- and –

NEMO PERSONAL FINANCE LTD

Defendants

Interested Party

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lord Pannick QC and Mr C Flint QC

Mr J Herberg and Mr S Pritchard (instructed byFreshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP) for the Claimant

Mr M Brindle QC and Miss M Carss-Frisk QC

Mr R Coleman and Mr J McClelland (instructed by SNR Denton UK LLP) for the First Defendant

Mr Hodge Malek QC and Mr J Strachan (instructed by Russell Cooke LLP) for the Second Defendant

Mr M Fordham QC and Mr P Luckhurst (instructed by Herbert Smith LLP) for the Interested Party

Hearing dates: 25th, 26, 27th and 28th January 2011

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Approved Judgment




......

Overall conclusions
1. I grant permission to argue all three grounds, but dismiss them.

Any chance of putting it on a PDF cos I can't currently read any word documents whatsoever?

[NLP]

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

So what have we learnt today from this "fast-tracked case"?

The JR was pointless in the first instance... we knew it, the FSA knew it, the FOS knew it and most of all the BBA/Lenders knew it...... but they did win.. you see... it's been 6 months since a pause in claims... and now 3 more weeks to decide to appeal... which they will

and then?

another 6-12 months wait?

this was the masterplan from the off... win lose draw... "they always win"

[Jester]

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

Interesting quote:

Lord Pannick QC, for the BBA, said the changes could lead to 35 insurance companies failing, with the resulting refunds to borrowers falling on the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.


Banks Face Huge Bill After PPI Court Case - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Finance

[nelliewops]

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

Very pleased we've won this first round of the battle chaps and hopefully we'll go on to win the war

I've just taken the opportunity to take a look at the interest calculator for my one remaining case against LTSB (currently awaiting an adjudicator at the FOS) and was pretty surprised at what I found -

I only have the basic details of this loan account and am not 100% sure of the interest rate etc, but discovered that based on an interest rate of 15%, on the first monthly premium alone I could be due over £300..............and this was an 84 month term loan which I paid religiously for the full term!!!

LTSB are going to love me even more than they currently do, lol

Keeping everything crossed for everyone affected by today's result and any future repercussions!