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

[di30]

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

The letter I received from Lloyds today - the claim ref number is not the same as the ones on the usual letters.

I understand the Ref number would be different if this was done through the CEO dept (because that is who I emailed last), but its still sent from the Customer Service dept in Newport, but looking back on the previous letters they are different to this one received today.

Perhaps its because this one was query related, goodness knows??

[leclerc]

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

with regards to NCF, how are the banks supposed to contact customers who have not claimed PPI and have then moved address? Surely the whole point of pro active contact is that it is sent to the last known address.
The current situation with regards to Welcome Finance is that all PPI customers are receiving letters with regards to PPI and I would assume to the last known address, are you expecting them to write to an address that they do not have and cannot be certain is the one that the claimant live in? Surely that is a ridiculous thing to suggest. Furthermore, not everyone will contact the bank in spite of the possibility of reclaiming PPI to get a refund of premiums.
What happens then? Should the bank proactively refund a customer directly to their account or the account that they might have had but may not have now?
I think that we are assuming a lot currently in spite of the fact that the BBA have not yet put in their grounds of appeal and have yet to be heard in that appeal.
Once that has been heard and a final decision reached be it at the Supreme Court or lower court then we can start talking about how they will calculate redress.

[di30]

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

Just 11 days from tomorrow folks for BBA/Banks to decide on an appeal.

Shame its had to go as far as this just to treat customers fairly!



http://www.out-law.com/page-10509

Payment protection insurance: complaints handling and redress


This guide is based on UK law. It was last updated on 27th April 2011.

New rules and guidance on handling and redressing customer complaints about payment protection insurance (PPI) came into force on 1st December 2010.
The finalised text, published by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in a policy paper on 10th August 2010, now forms part of the dispute resolution sourcebook (DISP) in the FSA Handbook. The paper was the final stage in a consultation process that began in September 2009.
In October 2010, the British Bankers Association (BBA) (many of whose members sell PPI policies) issued an application for judicial review, claiming that the August 2010 policy statement was unlawful. It said the FSA was seeking to augment the specific rules that were in place at the time the sales were made.
The application was dismissed by the High Court on 20th April 2011 (see: Banks lose PPI complaints battle, OUT-LAW News 21/04/2011). It is not yet known whether the BBA will appeal.

Scope

The guidance applies to complaints about the sale of all types of PPI contract, whatever the basis on which it was sold and irrespective of whether the policy is still in force, was cancelled during the policy term or ran its full term (DISP App 3.1.1G).
For banks and insurers, the new regime covers complaints about PPI sales going back to 1st December 2001.
Brokers and intermediaries, however, have only been subject to FSA regulation since 14th January 2005. The FSA has confirmed that DISP applies to complaints against intermediaries about earlier sales if the intermediary was a member of the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC) at the time of the sale and the subject matter was covered by its rules.
Although the GISC code did not include many of the more detailed provisions now found in ICOBS, the FSA is satisfied that its general principles are sufficiently similar to those in the Handbook.
Sections in the final amended DISP text that have been given the status of "evidential provisions" will, however, only apply as guidance to complaints about pre-2005 sales (DISP App 3.10). Guidance is illustrative, but not binding, whereas compliance with an evidential provision will be taken as evidence that the firm has complied with FSA requirements.
For non-GISC sales (which would be outside the scope of DISP), complainants have to rely on common law principles, such as negligence or (where the broker was acting as agent of the insurer) the duty of utmost good faith or the general law on misrepresentation.


Limitation

Under DISP, a consumer must make a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) within six years of the sale, or three years from when he knew (or ought reasonably to have known) he had cause for complaint, whichever is the longer.
Given all the publicity about PPI, many respondents to the consultations argued that the three-year time limit will have expired in most cases.
The FSA, however, takes the view that general media coverage, or even FSA comment, would not be enough to give rise to the sort of specific knowledge required by DISP.
Although some consumers may be deemed to have had sufficient awareness before January 2008 (so that their complaints would have been out of time by January 2011), the FSA says this is unlikely to apply generally. In any event, the final decision will rest with the FOS.


Handling complaints

The guidance defines complaints as complaints "which express dissatisfaction about the sale, including the rejection of claims on the grounds of ineligibility or exclusion (but not matters unrelated to the sale, such as delays in claims handling)", (DISP App 3.1.1.G).
The phrase "breach or failing" is used throughout to describe cases where the firm's conduct of the sale failed to comply with the rules or was otherwise in breach of a duty of care or any other requirement of the general law, taking into account any relevant materials published by the FSA, other regulators and the FOS (DISP App 3.1.2.G).
Where the firm decides there was a breach or failing, it should consider whether the complainant would have bought the PPI in the absence of that breach or failing. Two rebuttable presumptions apply: that the complainant would have not bought the PPI at all, or (in the case of single premium PPI) that he would have bought a regular premium policy instead (DISP 3.1.3G).
There may, however, be instances where the firm concludes that, despite its breaches and failings, the complainant would still have bought the same policy (DISP 3.1.4G).

This is quite long, for even more info - click on above link.

[Angry Cat]

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

with regards to NCF, how are the banks supposed to contact customers who have not claimed PPI and have then moved address?

LOL, the Banks appear to be able to contact customers who allegedly owe the Bank's money!

Leclerc, are you suggesting that the same Banks's would not know who they sold/mis-sold PPI to?

Asset investigation depts come to mind...

[Angry Cat]

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

Hillarious... what kind of clown would believe the Banks would follow guidelines and actually contact all customers owed refunds?

haha - of course I would trust the banks... they never lie, cheat or steal do they?

Dear Customer,

We have ripped you right off over the last 6 years, find enclosed a cheque for the full refund including all interest.

Yours
A Crook

Chaiman of Robbing Barstewards & Sons (RBS)

Love it, NLP!

[EXC]

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

Leclerc, are you suggesting that the same Banks's would not know who they sold/mis-sold PPI to?

He's suggesting that they know who they sold it to but might not know where they now live. Clearly.

[Garlok]

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

Like someone else said though EXC, they can find you quick enough if you owe them money. Why not the other way around?

regards
Garlok

[EXC]

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

Like someone else said though EXC, they can find you quick enough if you owe them money. Why not the other way around?

regards
Garlok

I don't know. I was simply addressing the misrepresentation of Leclerc's reasonable point.

[di30]

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

Old news LOL from Judgement day, a clip with this one, they also did state the banks did not want to be interviewed.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...ourt-case.html

GREEDY banks could be forced to pay out a whopping £4.5BILLION to ripped-off customers wrongly sold pricey Payment Protection Insurance, after a massive court victory for consumers today.

And more on link......

[pompeyfaith]

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

Leclerc,

When you say while in uni do you mean during study hrs ? if so that is a no, he was doing 25 hrs at uni and 16 hrs at asda plus home study.

[pompeyfaith]

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

with regards to NCF, how are the banks supposed to contact customers who have not claimed PPI and have then moved address? Surely the whole point of pro active contact is that it is sent to the last known address.

How about the electoral roll it cannot be that hard in this super technological world to find some of them admittedly some will escape the net but by trying a bit harder quite a few will be traced.

[leclerc]

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

How about the electoral roll it cannot be that hard in this super technological world to find some of them admittedly some will escape the net but by trying a bit harder quite a few will be traced.
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Can someone ask Welcome Finance/FSCS what they are doing to contact customers?
Do you think they are using the electoral roll? Do you think they are contacting them at an address that they do not know about?

I wish people would get real with regards to what financial institutions will and will not do. Again, we are speculating on what they will do so ask Welcome Finance/FSCS what they ARE doing in this regards and come back and apply it(apologies if that sounded like I was your GP at the last appointment ).

[leclerc]

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

LOL, the Banks appear to be able to contact customers who allegedly owe the Bank's money!


Leclerc, are you suggesting that the same Banks's would not know who they sold/mis-sold PPI to?

Asset investigation depts come to mind...

They would know who they sold them to but not necessarily whether that address was up to date since some people do not let the bank know if they have moved and more importantly, if they have no financial relationship with the provider ie no credit card/loan/mortgage/current account with them. I'm not saying that they will not write to all policyholders but whether all policyholders will claim that their PPI was missold, would answer any letter from their bank or simply throw the letter away. I am sure that writing to the last known address is sufficient for the FSA/FOS should the rules be upheld.

[ncf355]

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

LOL, the Banks appear to be able to contact customers who allegedly owe the Bank's money!

Leclerc, are you suggesting that the same Banks's would not know who they sold/mis-sold PPI to?

Asset investigation depts come to mind...

Thanks AC,

This is my point exactly (LeClerc), and one I believe I made crystal clear in my post

If it's in their own interest they will go to the Nth degree to track you down, but if it's contrary to their balance sheets, they wont

[leclerc]

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

Thanks AC,

This is my point exactly (LeClerc), and one I believe I made crystal clear in my post

If it's in their own interest they will go to the Nth degree to track you down, but if it's contrary to their balance sheets, they wont

If you read my recent posts, I have explained what I meant not that I thought it was necessary since I was applying a logical explanation however, if someone could look at the welcome/FSCS manner in which they have contacted customers then that would be appreciated since I doubt they have gone to the ends of the earth to contact customers apart from name and address either at the time of the policy ending(for non existing customers now) and to the current address for existing customers today.
At the end of the day, I think it is unreasonable for you to expect the banks to trace each and every single customer where mail is returned should that be the criteria that is used post PPI JR case(and we are no where near that time yet to even be there).