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

[di30]

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

Hiya

Well that does sound hopeful, but I know what your saying.

So are they saying they did have a copy of your agreement and now lost it?
Sorry a bit muddled lol.
If this is the case they should keep a copy on microfiche I would have thought.
Did they give you any idea of when you should hear something, or is it a matter of awaiting of a decision on a appeal?

they said my branch should have copy in their files as loan was done in branch but they can't find it and i don't have a copy of it either.concerns team guy said they will be able to get figures and amounts he did mention where they would get all my information but it wouldn't be a signed agreement.he said a few weeks am i right thinking they can't prove i wasn't mis sold if they don't have document. thanxs[/quote]


Hi hun

That rings the bell with mine when I was told to write to my branch direct, but then received a letter to say they do not longer hold them, still I have so much paperwork to know I was sold ppi, the amounts etc.

I understand if they've not got much or anything to go by, they will still consider your complaint, and its known that many have still been awarded.
So with you being told its likely you will get a payout, maybe they do or don't hold much details but taking in consideration of your reasons......maybe.

Fingers crossed. x

[di30]

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

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/credit-...moretopstories

Will banks fight High Court over mis-sold PPI ruling?

Banks are holding crunch meetings with their lawyers this week to decide whether to carry on their fight to overturn hundreds of thousands of complaints about mis-sold payment protection insurance.

[di30]

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

http://www.dac.co.uk/documents/resou..._judgment_Wire

INSURANCE

APRIL 2011

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PPI MIS-SELLING JUDGMENT

The High Court has upheld the FSA's policy statement about mis-selling of payment
protection insurance (PPI). In October last year the British Bankers Association (BBA)
commenced judicial review proceedings against the FSA and the Financial Services

Ombudsman (FOS) challenging the way that mis-selling of PPI should be assessed.

This decision, handed down last week, is a dramatic affirmation of the FSA's
understanding of the statutory scheme under which it was established over 10 years

ago and its ability to order firms to compensate victims of mis-selling.



Further details of the three grounds on link.

[pompeyfaith]

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

http://www.dac.co.uk/documents/resou..._judgment_Wire

The FSA estimate that since 2005 over
£15.6bn of PPI has been sold. On the basis
that 20% of customers who are contacted
respond to the invitation to make a claim for
mis-selling, the FSA estimate that the total
cost of providing redress for PPI mis-selling
will be £3.2bn. This estimate does not
include the cost of providing redress for pre-
2005 PPI sales which we understand make
up a considerable percentage of current
complaints. The BBA's estimate of the cost
of providing redress is £4.5bn.

So pre 2005 claims have got a mention

Sellers of PPI will
need to carefully consider the effects of the
evidential and guidance provisions in the
policy statement regarding the root cause
analysis of the complaints and the extent
and nature of procedures for any
subsequent customer contact exercise.

So the extent that the banks will go to to seek the consumers affected is still to be decided.

The implementation of the policy statement
will also bring into focus issues between
sellers of PPI and PPI providers about who
bears the substantial cost of providing
redress to customers.

If the appeal goes in the consumers favour the above could futher dely redress in that the seller could enter long discussion with the insurer over who pays what percentage to the consumer

This is I believe a real possibility as we all know banks favour damage limitation and will want the insurance industry to bear some of the cost.

[charitynjw]

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

FOS News

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...news/93/93.pdf

[Bill-K]

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

Cheers for that, Charity. If nowt else, we can quote Natalie's open letter to those whom we are claiming from - and ask them to clearly state what reason they now have for putting - or leaving - our claims on hold.

In the end, we have the CPR protocol to be observed. If that is flouted, then it becomes 'negative Brownie points,' does it not ?

The Law MAY be an ass - and Justice herself MAY wear a blindfold - but she still holds the scales, surely, bless her. Thus - let the negative Brownie points be added to the balance.

[EXC]

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

So pre 2005 claims have got a mention

So the extent that the banks will go to to seek the consumers affected is still to be decided.

If the appeal goes in the consumers favour the above could futher dely redress in that the seller could enter long discussion with the insurer over who pays what percentage to the consumer

This is I believe a real possibility as we all know banks favour damage limitation and will want the insurance industry to bear some of the cost.

The £3.2b mentioned in the piece doesn't only apply to RCA customer contact exercises but to all the measures in the Policy Statement, so I'm still not convinced that RCA will definitely include pre 2005 sales. Having said that the FSA does recognise pre 2005 mis-selling so I hope you're right.

The issue of ultimate liability between the sellers and providers of PPI is not one that should have any bearing on the delay of consumer redress:

The role of insurers and lenders in mis-selling PPI
Concerning provider/distributor responsibilities, where a firm is an authorised general
insurance intermediary, it is not bound, unless by contractual terms, to offer a particular
PPI policy provided by a lender. Indeed, in some cases, doing so may not be treating
customers fairly.37 Distributors are responsible for maintaining a compliant sales process,
and therefore should be responsible for redress, where a failing arose from the manner in
which the product was sold. If brokers feel that undue pressure was placed upon them by
lenders or insurers, they may separately have recourse to the courts if they so choose.

The issues in relation to agency law (e.g. whether the broker is acting (as agent) on the
part of the insured or the insurer (as principal)) are complex and fact specific, depending
on both the individual contractual arrangements between the parties and the specific
facts surrounding a particular sale. Again, brokers may separately have recourse to the
courts if they so choose.

Accordingly, we remain of the view that our Handbook text concerning PPI complaints and
redress is appropriately positioned in its emphasis on the seller of the policy, and we are not
making any changes to it in this regard.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps10_12.pdf

[ncf355]

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

Interesting BBC article here covering the lengths you could go to in your PPI claim to claim reperation, not just straight compensation

(Apologies if already posted!)

[cardinals]

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

Interesting BBC article here covering the lengths you could go to in your PPI claim to claim reperation, not just straight compensation

(Apologies if already posted!)

Crikey - I'd say the BBC are a touch reckless recommending the court route at the moment!

What if you come up against Judge Waksman and lose with a cost order?

[leclerc]

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

they said my branch should have copy in their files as loan was done in branch but they can't find it and i don't have a copy of it either.concerns team guy said they will be able to get figures and amounts he did mention where they would get all my information but it wouldn't be a signed agreement.he said a few weeks am i right thinking they can't prove i wasn't mis sold if they don't have document. thanxs

Hi hun

That rings the bell with mine when I was told to write to my branch direct, but then received a letter to say they do not longer hold them, still I have so much paperwork to know I was sold ppi, the amounts etc.

I understand if they've not got much or anything to go by, they will still consider your complaint, and its known that many have still been awarded.
So with you being told its likely you will get a payout, maybe they do or don't hold much details but taking in consideration of your reasons......maybe.

Fingers crossed. x[/QUOTE]
Di, the one thing i noticed with Lloyds is that certainly last year(and I am not sure for how long previously that they did this) they scan the paperwork onto their system so that it is available immediately on the records. Branches may not necessarily hold years and years worth of paperwork, depending on the size of the branch and the storage space that they hold. Most banks will hold paperwork at a central location should it be required at a later point.

[leclerc]

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

''Three or four years ago, as the PPI storm clouds were beginning to gather, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Insurance & Financial Services held a joint dinner with Alliance for Finance, a federation of trade unions with members in the financial services sector. One of the issues raised by the trade unions was how the counter staff in banks were being set unrealistic targets for sales of PPI, targets that they were adamant could be reached only by mis-selling the product. This shocked the MPs at the dinner and probably, at least partially, explains why very few political voices are raised in support of the banks on this issue.''

http://blog.appgifs.org.uk/2011/05/b...he-ppi-co.html

To be blunt with you the way you got sales further back than that was you asked the customer how much they could afford to pay and then quoted them a figure that was a "fully protected" loan at a price within their price range. PPI certainly with RBS meant that the points(and they worked and still do on a points based approach, ie a 25k loan was at one point 250 points yet with PPI when it was sold, it was doubled to 500 points--based on new money lent and not paying off old loans so you could suggest to someone that they could borrow more than they needed to reduce the interest rate again adding points to the branch total). Other things I heard of was cancelling DD's and SO's to effectively bump up the total amount of "free income" which helped loans to go through then reinstating the DD's once the loan was approved. The targets were heavy and not achieving it meant that advisors could be told by managers that they weren't doing their job properly, they were letting their branch down and of course the incentives on bonuses for hitting targets was effectively doubling their salary during the year.
On PPI, the profit margin was something like, 700-800 pounds per policy(Amethyst might remember that convo since I might have mentioned it to her at the time I was aware of it ).

[ncf355]

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

Crikey - I'd say the BBC are a touch reckless recommending the court route at the moment!

What if you come up against Judge Waksman and lose with a cost order?

To be fair, I think they talk about Small Claims only in the article, though its open to interpretation

[The Debt Star]

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

Other things I heard of was cancelling DD's and SO's to effectively bump up the total amount of "free income" which helped loans to go through then reinstating the DD's once the loan was approved.

that brings back horrible memories of my own credit application days, when I could pick up the phone and someone could fix a loan by manipulating things like that Also agreeing to PPI on the phone in the belief that agreeing would increase my chances of getting a new card or personal loan. I recall one call centre op telling me that it would.

I hope, dearly hope, those days of indiscriminate lending do not return but I bet they will.

[cappo]

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

that brings back horrible memories of my own credit application days, when I could pick up the phone and someone could fix a loan by manipulating things like that Also agreeing to PPI on the phone in the belief that agreeing would increase my chances of getting a new card or personal loan. I recall one call centre op telling me that it would.

I hope, dearly hope, those days of indiscriminate lending do not return but I bet they will.

they,ll find something else d.s

[EXC]

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

Crikey - I'd say the BBC are a touch reckless recommending the court route at the moment!

The recklessness is not the BBC's (they wouldn't know any different) but Marc Gander's.

In my opinion he has an irresponsible and dangerous obsession of encouraging people to litigate, coupled with a twisted bias against the FOS - although he appears to be alone in this amongst the rest his CAG site team.

I challenge anyone to read these threads and not be distressed at the copious dramatics bordering on arrogance and complete absence of any legal information.

The Consumer Forums - Get your PPI money now

The Consumer Forums - Banks continue to defy FSA, OFT, Courts and Public Opinion in PPI [problem]

It is fundamental to taking any legal action that you have a solid legal argument that you fully understand but even when asked what that might be, answer comes there none.