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

[The_Big_Dog]

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

so a SAR you can request for even if sale took place over 6 years ago...? The guy who is asking me said that he is sure the PPI was about 6000 on top of his 20000 loan so would be massive claim if he can do it.. he took loan out through Norton finance and lender was first plus in 2004

You can do an SAR for however far back you want - the only snag is the lender may hide behind the Statute of Limitations Act and state - 'sorry, we've destroyed the file'. It's got to be worth a go for a claim that large. I would also speak to First Plus to see what info they've got on file - I'd say that they would definately have records on the loan as it's likely the loan would have been running in the past 6 years so at least you're going to get credit agreements, transcripts of calls etc to have a peek at (Just because Norton were the broker, it doesn't automatically follow that they also sold the PPI - it could well be the case that FP sold it to him when conducting their final checks on the loan - Nemo were the masters at doing that).

I think an SAR to both of them would be of benefit to your case before going to Norton with a full blown complaint. If Norton do turn around and state they haven't got any record or recordings or any info at all - they're going to find it tough to defend a complaint going in there aren't they?

[mosten]

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

cunning plan we will send them off tomorrow then an see what happens.. ta very much..

[debtisbad]

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

Please, see my original post:
Legal Beagles Consumer Forum - View Single Post - Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

And for the avoidance of doubt, I will quote an extract from an MBNA letter dated July 2008, which was signed by Gail Powell:



Naughty MBNA!

I had an almost identical letter from MBNA/Abbey, but went to the FOS anyway. My complaint was upheld and I was paid out. MBNA/Abbey wrote back apologizing for their "oversight" and I received payment, plus interest, plus compensation.

[dogtired]

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

I am still awaiting a reply/cheque from M and S money, letter from Barclays saying I may get a reply by 28th July the two with FOS
are taking a long time.
One going to ombudsman, when quite clearly the documents supplied by Cabot could have been for anyone as they did not have any details on them the other is the same but still awaiting adjudicator on that one!
Now I am not sure about what is happening with another with Welcome Finance who appear to be making the rules up as they go along, this too is awaiting a decision from the FOS who told me verbally two years ago that they had told them to "cease collection activity".
The news then came out that they had, in effect ceased trading and that any ppi claims were being dealt with by the FCS.
I did inquire as it is now into its third year with FOS and was told that the pre 1995 cases were being dealt with by Welcome themselves (we had "won" this via the FOS but refused to accept it as Welcome were treating it as a "new" loan .)
I did a SAR back in 2008 when I got this back it had bits "missing" and had documents with our old address on and a different account number so in effect there was nothing to say that this account existed.
Out of the blue at the beginning of the year I had mail from a debt collector, (no assignment or anything like) sent a "prove it" letter, sent copy of it to FOS.
Got another last week, again sent "prove it" letter and sent copy to FOS.
Just what is happening do not really want to get back in touch with Welcome but FOS are stilL saying it may take some time for Ombudsman's decision, would the previous PPI judgment stand?

[debtisbad]

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

Limitation Act 1980



Lets not forget many PPI Sales can be the result of a financial mistake and/or wrong and indeed on many sales pre 2007 that where not subject to a multiple agreement Concealment can also be the case.

So the above s32 can apply which states that the limitation period starts from the point of discovery.

I have no doubts there are many many consumers out there that still do not know they are paying PPI.

So in those cases the 6 yr limitation period has not even started yet.

Regards

Excellent piece of investigation. This will apply to many, many people. It also means that the present PPI refunds, although potentially big, are only the tip of what could be an even bigger ice-berg. Reading through many threads and posts on here, a lot of people will fall into this category. Moreover, I have not seen any reports on here where people have used this legislation to recover mis sold PPI premiums, so it could be a whole new area. Well done, PompeyFaith.

[The_Big_Dog]

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

[quote=The_Big_Dog;218673]These are tricky at the best of times. You could try and prove an Agent & Principal relationship between the insurer and their agent selling the ppi. If it can be proved, then you can legitimately go for the insurer as they've profited from the transaction. Eventhough the broker isn't under FOS juristiction, the insurer will be. The only snag is the length of time it takes the FOS to investigate these cases. I've got a few of these in with them and for the past 12 months, all I've had is letters from them stating that they are investigating whether they can investigate the complaint I've put in. As it taken them ages just to find out if the can investigate at all, I'm not holding my breath, but if they say - no, outside juristiction, I'll argue like hell with them.

Strangely enough, I've had a letter from the FOS on one of these types of cases this morning, and this is what it states:

I am writing with a further update on the progress we are making with this complaint.

Since my last letter, (Insurance Company) has replied to us with it's view about responsibility for this complaint. We have now considered (Insurance Company's) response and will be going back with our reply to the points it has made.

It is likely that we will be having more of this type of contact with (Insurance Company) because of the complex legal arguments you have submitted with the complaint.

OK - not groundbreaking, but it looks a bit more promising. If I can get this to stick and make them culpable, then it opens up virtually every complaint because the broker/adviser might not be under FOS juristiction but the insurer will be.

I'll keep you posted.

TBD.

PS - In the meantime, 2 MBNA settlements in this morning - it's been a long, long time since I've seen settlements arriving on consecutive days!

[The_Big_Dog]

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

[quote=The_Big_Dog;218755][quote=The_Big_Dog;218673]These are tricky at the best of times. You could try and prove an Agent & Principal relationship between the insurer and their agent selling the ppi. If it can be proved, then you can legitimately go for the insurer as they've profited from the transaction. Eventhough the broker isn't under FOS juristiction, the insurer will be. The only snag is the length of time it takes the FOS to investigate these cases. I've got a few of these in with them and for the past 12 months, all I've had is letters from them stating that they are investigating whether they can investigate the complaint I've put in. As it taken them ages just to find out if the can investigate at all, I'm not holding my breath, but if they say - no, outside juristiction, I'll argue like hell with them.

Strangely enough, I've had a letter from the FOS on one of these types of cases this morning, and this is what it states:

I am writing with a further update on the progress we are making with this complaint.

Since my last letter, (Insurance Company) has replied to us with it's view about responsibility for this complaint. We have now considered (Insurance Company's) response and will be going back with our reply to the points it has made.

It is likely that we will be having more of this type of contact with (Insurance Company) because of the complex legal arguments you have submitted with the complaint.

OK - not groundbreaking, but it looks a bit more promising. If I can get this to stick and make them culpable, then it opens up virtually every complaint because the broker/adviser might not be under FOS juristiction but the insurer will be.

I've just come off the phone with someone at the FOS who really knew what she was talking about on these issues and we had a good discussion about it.

What she stated is the Ombudsman is of the opinion that in certain cases, dependent on the T&C's, contracts and evidence available, the insurer could be held culpable for the advice given and the FOS will then investigate the complaint and make a decision - thats very promising news. However, what she did say is that the insurance company who I named earlier (and have now blanked out so if they read this thread it won't alert them), have pulled in their solicitors and are fighting this tooth and nail - looks like they're worried. The FOS stated that there's a lot more water to go under the bridge and they may have to issue a Ombudsman's binding decision stating they're culpable. However, she did warn that if they were still opposed to this view, then they have the option to request a Judicial Review.

Bloody hell! I'm only getting over the last one!

God I love being a CMC and causing havoc on banks and insurers - there's no other job that can match this one for job satisfaction!

TBD.

[skv123]

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

These are tricky at the best of times. You could try and prove an Agent & Principal relationship between the insurer and their agent selling the ppi. If it can be proved, then you can legitimately go for the insurer as they've profited from the transaction. Eventhough the broker isn't under FOS juristiction, the insurer will be. The only snag is the length of time it takes the FOS to investigate these cases. I've got a few of these in with them and for the past 12 months, all I've had is letters from them stating that they are investigating whether they can investigate the complaint I've put in. As it taken them ages just to find out if the can investigate at all, I'm not holding my breath, but if they say - no, outside juristiction, I'll argue like hell with them.

TBD.

We are well over 2 years on maybe a dozen cases since referrals to the FOS on claims vs insurers and they still say that "due to the complex nature" they are as yet unable to determine whether they have jurisdiction...

[Paul210]

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

[quote=The_Big_Dog;218765][quote=The_Big_Dog;218755][quote=The_Big_Dog;218673]However, what she did say is that the insurance company who I named earlier (and have now blanked out so if they read this thread it won't alert them), have pulled in their solicitors and are fighting this tooth and nail - looks like they're worried. quote]

They're obviously worried that you may set a FOS precedent which would remove the pre authorisation dead end many people hit with older accounts.

IMHO the insurers have been sitting pretty making money off ppi knowing that it was the lender/broker who was on the hook if and when mis-sell was prooven, now they face the possibility that they may be liable in some cases.

A successful result here would be brilliant. Please continue to post up progress as I'd be very interested to see how this one turns out (as I'm sure a few others on here would be too.)

[leclerc]

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

FOS chief slams insurers for failing to stop PPI debacle | News | Money Marketing

[The_Big_Dog]

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

FOS chief slams insurers for failing to stop PPI debacle | News | Money Marketing

This turning into a bloody good day again!

It looks to me that the FOS are now coming to the view that the insurers could well be jointly liable - which is fantastic news for anyone who was sold a policy when either the lender/adviser was not under FOS juristiction. One of the arguments that we put to the FOS with our submissions on these types of claims is that the Insurer HAD to have an agent/principal relationship as money was changing hands for the sale of the policies. If money was changing hands, then there would have to have been a contract between them. As they wouldn't disclose any contracts to me when I asked them to prove that there wasn't a relationship between them and the adviser when we approached them with the complaint, I argued that it was up to the FOS to request this paperwork and find out exactly what capacity the adviser was acting in. My argument would be that in effect, they were either an Appointed Representative of the insurer, or going further, if the agent only had the lenders own policy to sell (which was the case with the majority of ppi sale), then the agent would have to have been working as a Tied Agent of the Insurance Company - they could not be acting in any other way.

According to the article above, Natalie Ceeney seems to share my own views (at least we agree on something!), that if the insurers were aware of policies being mis-sold they should have had the proper checks and balances to ensure the advice given and the sales practices at least conformed to GISC regulation, or prior, to ABI Codes of Conduct - they didn't do so - and they didn't do so because they were making so much money from the sale of the policies. They felt they were safe because they though the adviser would carry the can if a complaint arose.

The chickens could come home to roost on this one, and if they do, it's going to be fantastic news for everyone who's been sold a policy and the adviser is out of the FOS's juristiction.

Lord Pannick, during the JR, stated that some insurers could become insolvent if the JR went for the FSA & FOS. He could well be right - and it serves them right as well - ignorance (or feigned ignorance in this case) is no defence. Yet again, it's a big greedy corporation not having the right controls in place and were too busy counting the money to worry about it.

I'd go so far to say that if the FOS do state - 'yep - Insurers are Liable', it'll be the second most important victory for consumers after the Judicial Review itself.

This, even though it's in it's infancy, could turn out to be a huge consumer victory. And as a side note - can you imagine the 8% calculation on a huge lump sum policy that was mis-sold 10 - 15 years ago? It's gonna be BIG!

TBD.

[leclerc]

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

The obvious conclusion as well was that the regulator COULD have stepped in earlier but again failed in its duty to protect consumers.

[di30]

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

Have you also checked my thread The Big Dog, its been with the FOS since 2009, yet 2008 it was started up and still not got anywhere with the insurer/underwriter, yet i told them many times of HFC's involvement and its only recently they have gone that direction!

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ad.php?t=27433

[The_Big_Dog]

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

Have you also checked my thread The Big Dog, its been with the FOS since 2009, yet 2008 it was started up and still not got anywhere with the insurer/underwriter, yet i told them many times of HFC's involvement and its only recently they have gone that direction!

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ad.php?t=27433

Hi Di,

I've just popped my thoughts on there for you - hope it helps!

TBD.

[EXC]

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

I'd go so far to say that if the FOS do state - 'yep - Insurers are Liable', it'll be the second most important victory for consumers after the Judicial Review itself.

I think that's unlikely to happen to any meaningful extent. Although there have always been certain circumstances in which the insurer could be liable, the 10/12 Policy Statement is pretty clear in placing the burden of liability on the shoulders of the seller or distributor.

And as such the Policy Statement - which is the principal light by which the FOS is guided - would make for a strong argument in any challenge.


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.

Brokers have the right under DISP to forward PPI sales complaints to other firms
DISP 1.7.1R permits a firm to forward a complaint to another firm where it has reasonable
grounds to be satisfied that that other firm may be solely or jointly responsible for the
matter alleged in the complaint.

Insofar as a complaint is about the failings set out in the open letter and our Handbook text
we take the view that the ‘matter’ complained of is about the sale of the PPI, as opposed
to a complaint about the underlying product. In our opinion, such a complaint is properly
directed at the firm who sold the PPI and therefore firms are unlikely to have grounds to
forward that complaint on under DISP 1.7.1R.

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

That Natalie Ceeney thinks that insurers should have paid more attention to how third parties were selling their products is irrelevant to the consideration of ultimate liability in the eyes of the regulator.