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

[stevesouth33]

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

I think the BBA and the banks are probably waiting for a day that they can announce they will not be appealing, whilst attracting as little publicity as possible in so doing. Something like a Royal wedding maybe.....surrounded by bank holiday's.....

[ncf355]

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

Nah,

they'll appeal, and they'll announce that on the last possible day

Win or lose, their main aim is delay, delay, delay - as each day passes more people will give up their claims

I'm convinced they'll lose any appeal (thanks in no small part to Ousley's detailed judgment), but I also think we're looking at least a few months before we get there

[Garlok]

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

Hi Guys,

I believe they will appeal, they have to. On taking a serious look at this there are questions in my own mind which run around and would stand to be corrected on if anyone can throw light.

What actual law applies to all of this misselling of PPI and associated issues? It is established principle in law that a party may not profit at all from unlawful activity. This applies in common Law, Contract, Statute and is a recurring theme. Certainly this PPI issue has been declared unlawful by the high court and hence IMVHO should not interest in restitution also be paid to those affected as well as statutory interst under the County Courts Act?

It will be interesting to see just how far this will get pushed, all the way in favour of the consumer I would hope if the law trade has any principles left.

regards
Garlok

[ncf355]

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

G,

when have the courts declared PPI (in general) unlawful?

The JR has only ruled on the principles the FOS may apply

The only court ruling on PPI sales has been on an individual agreement basis and not all those cases have ruled for the consumer?

[pompeyfaith]

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

The only court ruling on PPI sales has been on an individual agreement basis and not all those cases have ruled for the consumer?

Indeed and it is why we need this appeal court judgment in our favour as it will send a clear message not only to the financial industry, but also to the Judges as it will be binding in county courts and thus imho make those claims to the financial industry that much easier in getting a result as they will leave themselves wide open to court proceedings.

Bring it on I say.

[jebedee]

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

If orig cred ceased to exist then poss have recourse to FSCS (depending on meeting date criteria), who was the original lender and when did you take out the debt?

Thanks but I don't have a debt at this time, my interest in this issue is more academic.

[Paul210]

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

Thanks but I don't have a debt at this time, my interest in this issue is more academic.

See my later post #2571

[EXC]

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

Minutes of FOS Board meeting on 16 March:

''The decisions director confirmed that because of the behaviours of the litigant banks complaints about PPI continued to be received at the rate of about 5,000 cases per week.''

''It was noted that a small surplus was generated in February. This masked a deficit in handling PPI cases (as a result of the added costs of non co-operation of litigant firms in handling PPI cases).''

''The finance & performance director pointed out that the risks arising from the volatility and uncertainty about PPI cases were such that the expected existing reserves of about £6m were unlikely to be adequate. She added that this could lead to technical insolvency and she reminded board members of their liabilities as directors under the Companies Act 2006. The board considered the level of reserves that could be required..........the level and nature of the risks the ombudsman service faces are such that it would present an unacceptable level of risk to depend mainly on the availability of overdraft facilities alone..........an additional reserve of £25m is prudent and necessary to manage these risks''.


http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...dminutes11.pdf

[The Debt Star]

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

Had a response to my PPI claim from First Direct today.

Previously they had said I could complain to the FOS or wait, and let them deal with the complaint but which was subjcet to the JR.

This is what they have said today:

"We have now reviewed your complaint against the requirements that we believe applied at the time of the sale in question. Having done so, we are satisfied that the PPI was sold in accordance with those requirements. For this raeson in normal circumstamces we would reject your claim.


"However, until the Court Action has been finally determined, we are unable to provide a final response to your complaint.

"This is because if the judgement is not appealed or of the Court confirms that firms are required to follow the approach set out by the FSA, we would need to review your complaint and it is possible that we may uphold your complaint."

Right, as usual, the banks are forcing me to go to the FOS. They are doing this despite this being one of those tick box PPIs with no sales advice and despite my having existing unemployment cover at the time the PPI was sold in the form of a PHI policy.

These numpties will never learn and the amount of dosh they must be forking out on the FOS beggars belief.

[Paul210]

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

Had a response to my PPI claim from First Direct today.

Previously they had said I could complain to the FOS or wait, and let them deal with the complaint but which was subjcet to the JR.

This is what they have said today:

"We have now reviewed your complaint against the requirements that we believe applied at the time of the sale in question. Having done so, we are satisfied that the PPI was sold in accordance with those requirements. For this raeson in normal circumstamces we would reject your claim.


"However, until the Court Action has been finally determined, we are unable to provide a final response to your complaint.

"This is because if the judgement is not appealed or of the Court confirms that firms are required to follow the approach set out by the FSA, we would need to review your complaint and it is possible that we may uphold your complaint."

Right, as usual, the banks are forcing me to go to the FOS. They are doing this despite this being one of those tick box PPIs with no sales advice and despite my having existing unemployment cover at the time the PPI was sold in the form of a PHI policy.

These numpties will never learn and the amount of dosh they must be forking out on the FOS beggars belief.

I've seen exactly the same wording today on an M&S money response (also dealt with by HSBC group) this seems to be standard wording issued across the board.

[EXC]

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

"We have now reviewed your complaint against the requirements that we believe applied at the time of the sale in question. Having done so, we are satisfied that the PPI was sold in accordance with those requirements. For this raeson in normal circumstamces we would reject your claim.


"However, until the Court Action has been finally determined, we are unable to provide a final response to your complaint.

"This is because if the judgement is not appealed or of the Court confirms that firms are required to follow the approach set out by the FSA, we would need to review your complaint and it is possible that we may uphold your complaint."

The only circumstances where they or anyone could legitimately argue that the JR could make a material difference to the outcome of a pending complaint are illustrated in the judgment, where the mis-selling of a policy is captured by the Principles (which are the subject of dispute in the JR) but not the insurance regulations at the time - ICOB and ICOBS.

’Ms Sinclair gave illustrations in her Witness Statement of the regulatory gap which the BBA's contention would open up. There is no specific ICOB rule which prohibits the selling of a PPI policy to someone who can never claim under it, even where the seller knows that to be the case. Such conduct would be covered by Principles 1, 3 and 6, but not if the BBA argument were correct since there were specific rules governing the sale of PPI policies.

There is no specific ICOB rule which prevents the non-advised sale of a PPI policy where the cost of the premium plus interest payable, when added to the loan, exceeds any amount which could ever be paid out under the policy. Yet that would engage Principles 1 and 6. There is no ICOB rule which prohibits, on a non-advised sale, the sale of a single premium PPI policy with a refund provision which is not proportionate to the duration of the policy where the seller knows that it is likely that the loan to which the policy was related would be refinanced shortly after the policy was taken out. This would be a breach of the Principles as explained in common failing 15. She accepted that all such conduct might, on particular facts, involve breaches of specific rules in ICOB.

The first example was used by Mr Brindle to test the true position of the BBA: was it saying that this could be dealt with by the application of the Principles, or that the application of the Principles had been exhausted by the specific ICOB rules? If the former, then the application of the Principles was accepted by the BBA and its point was limited to a debate, which it was agreed was not fruitfully for resolution by this court, as to which factual situations gave rise in practice to the application of conflicting or exhaustive specific provisions.’’

[Class Act]

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

Had a response to my PPI claim from First Direct today.

Previously they had said I could complain to the FOS or wait, and let them deal with the complaint but which was subjcet to the JR.

This is what they have said today:

"We have now reviewed your complaint against the requirements that we believe applied at the time of the sale in question. Having done so, we are satisfied that the PPI was sold in accordance with those requirements. For this raeson in normal circumstamces we would reject your claim.


"However, until the Court Action has been finally determined, we are unable to provide a final response to your complaint.

"This is because if the judgement is not appealed or of the Court confirms that firms are required to follow the approach set out by the FSA, we would need to review your complaint and it is possible that we may uphold your complaint."

Right, as usual, the banks are forcing me to go to the FOS. They are doing this despite this being one of those tick box PPIs with no sales advice and despite my having existing unemployment cover at the time the PPI was sold in the form of a PHI policy.

These numpties will never learn and the amount of dosh they must be forking out on the FOS beggars belief.

The firm is saying ultimately that they made a fair, full and compliant disclosure of price and exclusions/limitation by mailing it to you, the customer in a durable medium. As the open letter sales failings currently stand, that would not have been acceptable disclosure during a predominantly oral sale.

So they believe they complied with ICOB, and therefore this is why your case cannot be determined, ie under ICOB its compliant but under the Principles its non compliant and until the court case has finished (likely appeals etc), nearly all complaints will fall into this category.

Hope this makes sense.

[EXC]

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

So they believe they complied with ICOB, and therefore this is why your case cannot be determined, ie under ICOB its compliant but under the Principles its non compliant and until the court case has finished (likely appeals etc), nearly all complaints will fall into this category.

Hope this makes sense.

Indeed. And the FSA made it clear that where mis-selling is caught by both ICOB(S) and the Principles, the complaint should be upheld, as the breaching of the Principles ''would make no difference to the outcome on redress or remedial outcome''.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumer...ppi_letter.pdf

[The Debt Star]

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

IMO it is caught by both and my PPI Questionnaire made that clear to the bank. I complained that both the principles and ICOBS had been breached, so the FOS should be prepared to look into this for me.

The frustration is that the banks compel the consumer to escalate complaints. Time and time over.

However, I, like many others here, have quite a streamlined system now for disputing accounts and making complaints,. so its no big deal taking it to the FOS.

So if any banks are reading this then the message from the Debt Star is:

I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six complaints or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Text Box, the most powerful in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

[Paul210]

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

with my cynical head on:

just because a banks internal policies say they issue compliant disclosure docs does that mean they actually did it, as theyre not sent recorded delivery (or equiv) and if client not required to sign and return prior to 1st premium being charged then on a distance sale surely it cant be proved if it was done or not?

With the volumes of this which must have been sent out each day/week/month how would they keep track that it all went. If it cant be proved that it went is this sufficient to be a breach of ICOB(s), who would the burden of proof be on, the consumer or the bank?

Not suggesting for a minute everyone should suddenly start claiming they never received the KFI/IDD but given the average man on the street wouldnt know one of these if he tripped over it how could it be anything other that one sides word against the others?