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

[The Debt Star]

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

Most of the above was covered in Yates v Nemo wasn't it?

[mosten]

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

Spoke to my cousin again today and he said that at the CMC he works for, they are slowly starting to see some movement on offers... even had hsbc loan and credit card come through which he couldn't believe...

Hopefully sign of things to come then,,,

[The_Big_Dog]

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

Most of the above was covered in Yates v Nemo wasn't it?

Some of it was - yes. I've never really made my thoughts public on Yates & Harrison and the differences between the 2, but there's a first for everything.
Now, I'm happy to accept the fact that Harrison was HHJ Waksman's affirmation that the original County Court Judge, DJ Marston's initial Judgment was correct - however, what's really bugged me since I read the Judgment is how much HHJ Waksman has gone against another very important Judgment, which is Wilson & another v Hurstanger.
In Hurstanger, there was a broker involved, and the House of Lords considered the implications of a secret commission paid. The original County Court Judge dismissed the point as irrelevant, however, the Law Lords had an entirely different view and they stated that it was a bribe and that it would represent a fraud. Rewind to HHJ Waksman's verdict and he found that there was nothing wrong with the lender receiving a commission for the sale of the PPI policy and that ICOB does not have to take into account a policy which was 'expensive'. Very importantly, HHJ Waksman ruled that there was no evidence that Mr. & Mrs. Harrison would have done anything different had they known that the commission was 87%. With the utmost respect, I think he's wrong, because if I was buying something, if it was disclosed to me that 87% of the price was pure profit, then I'd be shopping elsewhere - which also has more than a whiff of the Competition Commission's report into the PPI market about it.
HHJ Waksman is famous (or infamous - dependent on which side of the fence you're sitting on), for the Harrison ruling and Carey v HSBC and other cases, which involved our old friends Cartel. Again, he went against Hurstanger, just to remind everyone, LJ Tuckey stated the following in the Hurstanger Judgment when he came to discussing Prescribed Terms under the CCA:

Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by schedule 6, but some does not. Contrasting the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said:

33. In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1.
The underlining is mine - HHJ Waksman in Carey v HSBC stated that the Prescribed Terms could be contained in another document - another nail in the coffin of the Consumer's rights.

Coming on to Yates, I believe that HHJ Platts was spot on in his Judgment, and, like HHJ Ouseley in the recent BBA JR, he smelt a rat - saw through the smoke and mirrors, and went with Yates & Lorenzelli. He also, by and large, went with the Hurstanger ruling on undisclosed commissions. Admittedly, there was a case of mis-representation in Yates as the broker was receiving a commission in the sale and it was stated that they had to have the insurance in order to get the loan.

A lot has been said on both cases that there was a broker involved in Yates and an employee involved in Harrison, however, in my eyes, the question that was not asked (and I think should have been), was what monetary gain did the employee of Black Horse receive on the sale of the policy? If there was a payment to the adviser, then the adviser was equally as culpable as the broker in Yates in selling the policy for financial gain and both cases should have been viewed in the same light.

TBD.

[The_Big_Dog]

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

The animosity towards CMCs by the FOS is hardly surprising and in my view not unreasonable.

The Financial Ombudsman scheme is a public service that provides redress to consumers. It was not designed as a free resource to award profits to opportunist businesses.

True - however for a poster with the reputation and intelligence that you have EXC, I'm suprised with the comment you've made.

Whichever way you look at it, CMC's act on behalf of members of the public - who are entitled to redress as they've been unlawfully deprived of money. You may call me opportunist, but isn't that true of any business where you have the natural laws of supply and demand at work?

Lets get to the nitty gritty here, which I why I'm a big advocate of consumer noticeboards - everyone who has done this themselves, irrespective of how easy they found the process, deserves a huge pat on the back - because they've done something that the vast majority of the population wouldn't do - and thats take the bull by the horns and take on their bank on their own. It takes a special type of person to do that - and we're all totally different to each other and what I'd find easy could well terrify someone else. I represent people who don't want to do it themselves, for whatever reason ot haven't got the time to do so.

If you have got the mindset to go to war with your bank, then this website and others like it, are ideal, but, and it's a big BUT, a lot of people, irrespective of how much help they receive, don't want to know and want to detatch themselves from the process - which is where I come in.

Now we could have a completely different conversation about CMC's who charge upfront, give their customers a lousy service, charge a ridiculous rate for their services, don't play fair etc because I'd agree with you a 100% - there are cowboys out there and the quicker the MoJ forget all about their fees for the year and how they're going to survive without them coming in the door the better - I would prefer they weed out the cowboys and the sharks so the rest of us can offer a good service to clients, and stand along side consumer websites side by side so consumers can make an informed choice - either do it yourself and if you win get 100% of the redress, or use someone like the big dog and get 80% of the redress, however, for the 20% you pay TBD he'll take the paperwork and headache away and you won't have to fire the bullets.

TBD

[EXC]

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

You're missing the point.

As the FOS points out ''All ombudsman schemes in the UK provide their services free to consumers'' and although the FOS is funded directly by the financial services industry it is of course indirectly funded by consumers through their profits. In contrast claims management companies contribute nothing to the ombudsman's service yet are the only sector that profits from it.

This is not an abject concept as CMCs now account for half the complaints to the FOS. Currently CMCs have their hands on 76% of PPI claims with the FOS and 45% of all complaints.

I think that if claims management companies want to raise their status in society above that of bottom-feeding fish then it's about time they considered paying their way. And so does the FOS.

''The possibility of charging complaints-management companies would have a range of implications – and would require primary legislation. We will discuss with the new Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) – once it is up and running – the possibility of a review of the way in which we are funded''. our plans and budget for 2011/12 – finalised and approved

[MattyA]

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

This is not an abject concept as CMCs now account for half the complaints to the FOS. Currently CMCs have their hands on 76% of PPI claims with the FOS and 45% of all complaints.

Blimey - thats a statistic and a half!
No wonder my personal claims are taking an age to be dealt with.
I agree that companies should be charged for the services of the FOS - after all the CMCs are charging for their services.
This would enable the FOS to employ more staff to deal with all claims more quickly.

Matty

[skv123]

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

I think that if claims management companies want to raise their status in society above that of bottom-feeding fish then it's about time they considered paying their way. And so does the FOS.

''The possibility of charging complaints-management companies would have a range of implications – and would require primary legislation. We will discuss with the new Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) – once it is up and running – the possibility of a review of the way in which we are funded''. our plans and budget for 2011/12 – finalised and approved

I don't think that any organisation in the world would suggest that they themselves should pay for a service that is provided to them without charge.

However, I do see a clear argument for charging the CMCs and Solicitors who use the FOS. I'm certain there are other areas where a fee is waived or reduced for individuals but charged to companies...i can't remember specific examples but i've certainly seen it.

[Paul210]

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

so how would FOS charge CMC's?

Its unfair to ask a CMC to pay a case fee similar to the lenders, firstly this would inevitabley end up being passed on to the consumer either by way of a disbursement charge or an increase in fees, secondly this would unfairly disadvantage a large number of consumers that uses cmc's as direct users of FOS wouldnt be charged and they (indirectly) would as detailed above.

Do you take a % of the cmc's fee, again its likely this increased cost would be passed on to the customer somwhere down the line and also this gives FOS a vested interest in the CMC winning as most CMC's are on a NWNF basis, something which would have the banks screaming "conflict of interest" from the rooftops and may even bring another JR.

The conflict of interest point extends to both sides of the case fee argument as well, would FOS spend less time on a case knowing that if CMC's pay a case fee as well as the lender then speed and volume is the key therfore disadvantaging the consumer, or would they increase the uphold rate on CMC cases knowing that the industry would stop referring cases if large volumes started going against them, therefore protecting their future income. Again you can just hear the banks screams from here.

The funding shortfall at FOS is a well known problem, the temptation to secure their future funding by looking at charging CMC's must be strong but whichever way they do it I can see problems.

I would be all for the charging of the less reputable CMC's out there who bring spurious cases to FOS i.e. where never ppi on account, it would be fair to bring some kind of charge for wasted resources on these cases and I think that the majority of decent CMC's would back this.

[andrew1]

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

Originally Posted by dogtired
Another question if a credit card ( bank of scotland) has been sold on (in this case to cabot) if successful does it go to Cabit or to me?
In the middle of "unenforeble" complaint with FOS and yesterday he tells me that HBOS are going to confirm they sold it to them, this has taken a year already should it not have heard sooner?

Read more at: Legal Beagles Consumer Forum - Reply to Topic

I'd fully expect them to send the money to Cabot as usually this would be offset against the arrears. As yet the unenforceablilty issues have not been dealt with so this would still be the case until this has been resolved.

There are differing views on here as to whether an assigned debt carrys an assignment to the right of setoff for something like a ppi reclaim however imho if push came to shove a judge would argue that had the account been maintained then offset would have applied so its unfair to punish cabot by removing that right now just because the terms were defaulted on.

...I'd actually tend to disagree, or at least argue this point. I had a BOS loan of 13k which had a further £5900 in PPI which was a condition when purchased over the phone. The loan was sold to cabot, but thre are a few things here. We know cabot buy debt for somewhere between 5 & 12% and I alsways argued on our cabot threads OTR that the purchase price to Cabot was a commercial decision and nothing to do with the debtor as rights and so on passed to cabot when assigned. However, there is a matter of unjust enrichment here because cabot did not lend us 13k or receive the payments for the PPI.

My loan was being taken to court by Cabot but they collapsed before any hearing on the basis of a shoddy attempt to collect from only one of the joint account holders by Morgans and the missold PPI making the agreement a multiple agreement anyway It was unenforceable. But cabot pulled out, and paid my solicitor costs too settling for the write-off.

So, when applying to BOS for the PPI I'd paid should this money go to cabot - I say no. One because the would be unjustly enriched far and above what they have lost over their purchase price and two, because a settlement was reached. Had they go their facts and litigation right and their purchase was an assignment correct from day one then they would have hammered me for the full outstanding balance, including PPI of £18,000 +/-

I don't see why BOS should be paying Cabot a penny.

I can happily confirm that this argument has now succeeded as presented - unjust enrichment is the way to go! Ya don't feck with the Cabot Fan Club! :lol:

[MattyA]

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

Good morning all,

I have been reading this forum over the last 6 months with great interest.

In November last year I submitted a complaint to MBNA for mis-sold PPI on a credit card which I had for around 6 years from about 2001. It was an AOL branded card and the application was at the time completed online (from memory). I got several letters between November and February apologising for the delay and then I received a letter in late February saying that my complaint was affected by the judicial and as a result I would have to wait on the outcome although I was entitled to complain to the FOS (Which I did). I have received several generic letters from the FOS saying how busy they are and they will look at my complaint as soon as possible.

So, last week I sent another letter to the customer advocate office at MBNA asking them to re-visit my complaint, Monday morning I received a letter upholding by complaint, repaying the PPI payments, associated interested and the statutory 8% interest, over £9500 in total! They have said they will send out a cheque within 28 days...lets wait and see but it looks alright to me

It has been a long wait since November but it has only cost MBNA more money in interest by delaying, I couldn't have possibly earnt 8% in my bank account!

For the cost of a few stamps its worth being persistent and dont let the buggers get you down!

Well done to you Bernie.

Can I ask you a question re your account ?

Did you settle your balance in full every month or did you carry the balance forward IE making partial / minimum payments?

Reason for asking is that I have been advised that I am only entiltled to 8% Stat interest and not the interest applied to the charges as I didnt settle the account in full each month.

I have a very keen interest in this as I have a number of claims on the go at the moment and this issue makes a huge difference to the amount of the refund.

Of the 4 upheld so far:

1: (Amex) have refused to pay the interest applied to the charges - so now with Ombudsman
2HSBC) Calculations again only show 8% - when questioned the dept that handles insurance claims will not consider this as part of my claim as they are only interested in refunding the premiums + 8% and have advised I contact card services re the refund of any other interest I feel is due.
3: (MBNA) Upheld - awaiting offer / calculation - fingers crossed
4: (MBNA/A&L - Santander)Upheld - awaiting offer / calculation - fingers crossed

Both offers to date have been made as a 'gesture of goodwill' - maybe this is a way for them to be seen as complying with the guidelines on such matters or maybe done to force me down the FOS route, knowing full well it wil take many more months to resolve.

Well done again on your fantastic result!

Matty

[StrayPup]

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

Good morning all,

I have been reading this forum over the last 6 months with great interest.

In November last year I submitted a complaint to MBNA for mis-sold PPI on a credit card which I had for around 6 years from about 2001. It was an AOL branded card and the application was at the time completed online (from memory). I got several letters between November and February apologising for the delay and then I received a letter in late February saying that my complaint was affected by the judicial and as a result I would have to wait on the outcome although I was entitled to complain to the FOS (Which I did). I have received several generic letters from the FOS saying how busy they are and they will look at my complaint as soon as possible.

So, last week I sent another letter to the customer advocate office at MBNA asking them to re-visit my complaint, Monday morning I received a letter upholding by complaint, repaying the PPI payments, associated interested and the statutory 8% interest, over £9500 in total! They have said they will send out a cheque within 28 days...lets wait and see but it looks alright to me

It has been a long wait since November but it has only cost MBNA more money in interest by delaying, I couldn't have possibly earnt 8% in my bank account!

For the cost of a few stamps its worth being persistent and dont let the buggers get you down!

Great news!

I haven't been on the Forum for a while. Since the Virgin/MBNA upheld my complaint I have been waiting for a response re my MBNA card proper. I phoned them up a couple of weeks ago and they told me that although they had upheld the Virgin card they would likely respond within 4 weeks re the MBNA card and they were taking into account the "sales channel".

Well today I received a response ...
"I can confirm that I have reviewed your complaint further and unfortunately I do not have sufficient information from you regarding your sale and as such would request that you complete and return to me the enclosed questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed by the Financial Ombudsman Service and will enable me to consider your complaint further"

Now, what to do? Obviously probably fill it in I suppose. But I am wary of falling into any traps. My MBNA card dates back to around 2001 too and all I can recall at that time was that this PPI amount was regulary charged every month and just like in the Virgin case, I did not ask for it. I have some old statements but I am not sure I have documents dating back to when I took out the card hence my predicament in filling out this form correctly without prejudicing myself.

Any guidance would be a help.

Apologies for not keeping up with forum events - slap around the wrists duly noted:tinysmile_grin_t:

[The_Big_Dog]

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

You're missing the point.

As the FOS points out ''All ombudsman schemes in the UK provide their services free to consumers'' and although the FOS is funded directly by the financial services industry it is of course indirectly funded by consumers through their profits. In contrast claims management companies contribute nothing to the ombudsman's service yet are the only sector that profits from it.

This is not an abject concept as CMCs now account for half the complaints to the FOS. Currently CMCs have their hands on 76% of PPI claims with the FOS and 45% of all complaints.

I think that if claims management companies want to raise their status in society above that of bottom-feeding fish then it's about time they considered paying their way. And so does the FOS.

''The possibility of charging complaints-management companies would have a range of implications – and would require primary legislation. We will discuss with the new Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) – once it is up and running – the possibility of a review of the way in which we are funded''. our plans and budget for 2011/12 – finalised and approved

In principle EXC, I personally wouldn't be adverse to paying a levy to the FOS for using the service, however, I feel if they were do that in it's current state then it would be grossly unfair.

Obviously, the first issue to be taken care of is the conflict of interest that would arise from us paying a fee - I believe that it could be viewed that as we're paying for the priviledge (I'll use that loosely), does that not cause a conflict of interest in that the FOS are an independent arbitration service - I'd argue that it changes the status quo because how can the FOS state going forward that they're independent when the complainant's agent is paying them to consider the complaint - it would be a nightmare. If we lost the case they'd be an argument because we'd paid them fees to look at the case and if the lender lost then they'd argue that the FOS were biased because we paid them.

I would be happy to pay the FOS a levy as long as they used the additional funds raised in a proper way and overhauled their service to make it fit for purpose. I'm sure you'd agree, the same as the majority of posters on here, dealing with the FOS at the present time is like dealing with the Keystone Cops - they just lurch from one disaster to another. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny - yet another public body who hasn't got a clue how to operate.

It is so bad in there, I haven't referred a case to them in nearly 8 months - I'd rather take my chance with the lender than give them the case. I think at the current time, I'd get more admissions of guilt from a lender that I would from the FOS for mis-selling.

The FOS have this aura about them that they're a well run organisation who do sterling work as an independent arbitrator. Many a time I've spoken to them on points and get the feeling that they're patronising me - the reality is the majority of them don't know what the hell they're doing and don't get me started on the cannonfodder that answer the phones because they wouldn't know what DISP was if it came up and bit them on the arse. Do I think the FOS is fit for purpose - No I don't. Do I feel that the FOS is an independent, well run organisation? No I don't. Would I consider referring a case to the FOS at present? Not on your nellie.

To me, the whole thing needs to be re-thought out, re-worked and to a certain extent, they need to start again from fresh because there seems to be no contingency in place to how they're going to reduce backlogs and stem the flow of really bad adjudications that are coming out of it at the moment. I believe they're trying to reduce backlogs by denying valid claims and hope they don't get an Ombudsman referral - that isn't sour grapes, or a wild accusation - the adjudications coming out of there are disgraceful, and they've got the nerve to state, well, the reason for it is that while the JR was ongoing, we've been working on non-ppi issues and the decline rate on these products are a lot higher then ppi so the same mentality is now being applied to ppi complaints - thats total hogwash. I also think that CMC complaints are being declined by the FOS to see if we appeal and what grounds - they might be looking for us to earn our money.

What I would like to see from the FOS is the following:

Firstly, to adopt a similar stance to the Court service when escalating a complaint to them. So a CMC should be viewed in the same light as a solictior as they should know what they're doing, and a member of the public the same as a litigant in person and be allowed some more leeway.

A checklist for submissions before the complaint going in, and not only does it include the usual items such as complaint form, questionnaire etc but also a copy of the credit agreement or proof that the client has paid ppi on their agreement. If a CMC can't get hold of this, then they're not doing their job properly and at best, the claim is speculative. The FOS have already made comment that they have a lot of complaints in there where there isn't ppi on the account - well, if thats the case, what the hell is the CMC doing and why aren't they getting this information either from the client or from a SAR?

When the complaint gets there, a review team to review the complaint. If all the items aren't provided, or complete, or if there isn't a cause of action - ie the case is so weak and full of generic vague points - send the whole thing back to the complainant and state 'sorry, can't deal with it, try submitting it again once you've got the story straight' (Doing this alone would stop the majority of duff complaints bogging them down).

If it is all there, then they call the file from the lender - give them 8 weeks to respond and stick to it. If the lender doesn't reply - they automatically lose - period.

Once thats back, give it to an adjudicator and train the bloody lot of them to sing from the same hymnsheet so they all adjudicate the same way. No more of this 'I think it is more likely than not' or 'I appreciate that XYZ bank didn't make it clear to Mr. Client that this was the case, however, I am not persuaded that this would have affected his decision to buy the policy' and all that rubbish - you've got the file from the lender - did they follow the rules and be able to back it up and does their paperwork stand up? If they did and the paperwork stacks - it's not mis-sold - if they haven't - then cough up. Does the complaint involve the 'common failings' as stipulated by the FSA? If the lender can satisfactory answer the points - then it's not mis-sold. At least then we know where we are and where we all stand.

Rather than give the lender 2 weeks to respond, and if they don't, refer it to an Ombudsman - force the lender to respond to the adjudication within 2 weeks and give detailed argument as to why they disagree with the Adjudicator. If they can't, or there's no contact - automatic loss. I've always been baffled why this happens - If I have a case which is declined and I feel hard done by, I have to go back to them with a detailed argument why I think they're wrong - it doesn't automatically go the the Ombudsman if I do nothing - so why should the lender get away with it?

Finally, TRAIN UP MORE OMBUDSMEN!

I'd love to see the FOS as a well oiled machine that consumers can turn to if they cannot reach agreement with their lender when a complaint is made. How I view the FOS at the moment is a complete waste of time where there's total chaos, no strict timescales, they run around like headless chickens, and with their current backlogs and case load, send a complaint in today, and if yu're lucky, you might get a legally binding decision in around 4 years time.

TBD.

PS - No doubt the FOS view these boards from time to time. If they disagree with what I've got to say, then I'm more than happy to meet with Natalie Ceeney face to face to have a full and frank discussion about how the organisation she heads works - just drop me a PM letting me know when she'd like to meet and I'll be there. I should imagine that she, like Walter Merricks before her, would run a mile at having to justify the management of their organisation to anyone.

[BernieButler]

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

Stray Pup, I actually started my complaint process by completing the FOS questionaire which I downloaded from the MSE website and sent directly to MBNA. I only really had the account number for reference. I don't think there is anything to be tripped up by, if you were mis sold you were mis sold and if they don't uphold your complaint just go to the FOS. The longer it takes them to sort out the more interest you will be earning...

[EXC]

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

so how would FOS charge CMC's?

In my view the fairest and easiest way CMCs should contribute to the FOS is by way of an increase to the license fee already levied by the Ministry of Justice.

The amount that CMCs are currently charged for an MOJ authorisation is pitiful. It's based on turnover and on a sliding scale that favours the biggest operators. Those with turnovers of £5m plus pay less than a quarter of one percent for their license, so it's not as if there's no scope for an increase.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/...ation-2011.pdf

[BernieButler]

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

Matty,

I didnt always pay the balance in full and very often carried significant balances over several months before paying off.

Hope this helps!?