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

[Bill-K]

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

I've been wondering about the issue of whether bank's should provide specific details of the amount of redress offered in a final response - rather than just saying how it will be calculated - within the given period (8,12 or 16 weeks).

The final response rules in DISP are ambiguous in that they only require the firm to ''offer redress or remedial action'' where due but doesn't state whether the amount should be specified. My view is that a 'final response' should include the amount as it is at that point where the complainant has to decide whether the remedy offered is satisfactory enough not to escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman.

The article in today's Guardian seems to suggest that the FSA does indeed require banks to specify the amount of redress in the final response letter

This has been a constant annoyance to me, too, EXC. My argument has always been that - in order for a claimant to decide whether or not to accept an offer in full and final settlement - he needs to be able to make an informed decision. Such a decision cannot be made without knowing what the offer actually is - and how it has been calculated.

All too often, we have found claimants being offered amounts which do not tally with our own calculations. But because we have not been allowed to see how the offers have been calculated, we have no option other than to conclude that the amounts are incorrect, and suggest that the claimant rejects it.

When such 'calculations' are provided, they are generally no more than a list of the elements of each offer - and certainly do NOT show how these elements have been calculated.

It is my understanding of Disp/App 3.9.4 that, if an understandable explanation of how the redress had been calculated is NOT provided, then the claim has not actually been settled in full.

Disp/App 3.9.4:-

The firm should make any offer of redress to the complainant in a fair and balanced way. In particular, the firm should explain clearly to the complainant the basis for the redress offered including how any compensation is calculated and, where relevant, the rescheduling of the loan, and the consequences of accepting the offer of redress.

[The Debt Star]

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

Bill, good post m8. Which is EXACTLY the position I'm now in with Egg!

[EXC]

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

Nice one Bill but playing devil's advocate here the DISP APP, although PPI specific, doesn't clearly define that the offer amount should be stated. And saying that the basis on which and how the compensation is calculated doesn't necessarily mean that the actual calculation has to be provided - just an explanation of the theory of it.

I reckon that it's this ambiguity that the banks are exploiting and clearly the FSA has made a pig's ear of it.

The firm should make any offer of redress to the complainant in a fair and balanced way. In particular, the firm should explain clearly to the complainant the basis for the redress offered including how any compensation is calculated and, where relevant, the rescheduling of the loan, and the consequences of accepting the offer of redress.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/hb-releas...rel108DISP.pdf

[Bill-K]

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

...EXACTLY the position I'm now in with Egg!

Yeah, innit just ? Makes my blood boil - and I really don't enjoy being brought to the boil by an addled egg !!!

Point taken, EXC. It is ridiculous that such an apparently detailed and comprehensive document as Disp App should be so ambiguous. I still think we can use it to demand that the lender provides more than just the totals. If we can demand that they provide the 'methodology' used in arriving at these totals (as is my interpretation of 3.9.4), then we will still have a lot more than we are currently being given.

With the methodology - AND the totals - we should still be able to make a far better judgement than we can at present. The actual figures used in the calculations would not need to be seen unless and until the offer is rejected and passed to the FOS (or whoevva) for scrutiny. As things stand, we are forced to reject offers in relative ignorance. If we are better able to understand the calculations, then this would benefit the FOS and the lenders, because it would remove from the process those claims that we might have accepted, had we known more about the calculation methods.

So, I believe there is some incentive for both the FOS and the lenders to be more forthcoming. Of course, though, the difficulty is that this would be like trying to explain to an ostrich that its' @$$ is a prominent target, when it has its' head buried in the sand !!!

[debtisbad]

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

This has been a constant annoyance to me, too, EXC. My argument has always been that - in order for a claimant to decide whether or not to accept an offer in full and final settlement - he needs to be able to make an informed decision. Such a decision cannot be made without knowing what the offer actually is - and how it has been calculated.

All too often, we have found claimants being offered amounts which do not tally with our own calculations. But because we have not been allowed to see how the offers have been calculated, we have no option other than to conclude that the amounts are incorrect, and suggest that the claimant rejects it.

When such 'calculations' are provided, they are generally no more than a list of the elements of each offer - and certainly do NOT show how these elements have been calculated.

It is my understanding of Disp/App 3.9.4 that, if an understandable explanation of how the redress had been calculated is NOT provided, then the claim has not actually been settled in full.

Disp/App 3.9.4:-

This happened to me, so I always asked for a full breakdown of the calculation and always got paid in full. Rule number one: don't accept the first offer without challenging it.

[Bill-K]

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

This happened to me, so I always asked for a full breakdown of the calculation and always got paid in full. Rule number one: don't accept the first offer without challenging it.

Agreed., guv'nor. We're now a Third World economy, and haggling is de rigeur.
But...and this is the clincher
...HOW did you know that you had been paid in full ?

[Paul210]

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

just been told by a staff member at Barclaycard that FSA given them an extension til 5/9 to deal with complaints, not verified, anyone else heard same story?, nothing on FSA website!

Someones telling porkies me thinks!

[Paul210]

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

just been told by a staff member at Barclaycard that FSA given them an extension til 5/9 to deal with complaints, not verified, anyone else heard same story?, nothing on FSA website!

Someones telling porkies me thinks!

theyve just rang us back and confirmed upholding and letter being sent today - very strange!

[MBD23]

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

Halifax/Bank of Scotland are sending just unquants, Lloyds are starting to send a lot too

[debtisbad]

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

It seems like tese are all tactics to appear to respond to the deadline, but in many cases they are just stalling paying out. Well, did we expect the banks to behave?

[MBD23]

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

It seems like tese are all tactics to appear to respond to the deadline, but in many cases they are just stalling paying out. Well, did we expect the banks to behave?

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']to be fair to the banks there are also a lot of PPI claims being settled that post dates the on hold stuff [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']
[/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Either a push to ensure they minimise any future backlog or they have cleared most of the backlog and are able to deal with newer claims[/FONT][FONT='Calibri','sans-serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']the banks are taking on teams and teams of people to deal with PPI, I’m sure some have been assigned to historic while others assigned to new claims[/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif'] [/FONT]

[EXC]

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

PPI backlog 97% cleared by banks


Banks have processed more than 97% of their huge backlog of complaints about payment protection insurance (PPI).

After losing a High Court test case in April they were told to deal with 200,000 complaints which they had put on hold pending the hearing's outcome.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) gave them until the end of August to either offer compensation, or reject the complaints.

Fewer than 6,000 of the backlog are now outstanding.

Margaret Cole of the FSA said: "We are encouraged that most firms have used the time extension to clear the backlog of complaints received during the judicial review."

A large number of fresh complaints have still been coming in to the banks, encouraged by the widespread publicity surrounding their legal defeat.

The FSA has said that new complaints generated since April must have been processed by 1 September 2011.

Fresh cases received after that date, but before 31 December, must be dealt with in 12 weeks. And from January 2012, the banks will have to go back to the normal eight-week timetable for responding to customers' complaints.

Fresh surge
The FSA revealed this week that the top 16 PPI sellers had paid compensation of £215m in the first half of the year for mis-selling the insurance, with nearly half of that being handed out in May and June alone. Complaints data published by individual banks in the past week has highlighted how they are being besieged by tens of thousands of disgruntled customers.

At RBS and NatWest in the first half of the year, PPI gripes made up 31% of all NatWest complaints and 47% of those to RBS.

These pushed total NatWest complaints up 24% to 147,109 and RBS complaints up 27% to 68,414. Last week, Barclays revealed it had received 73,000 PPI complaints in the first half of the year and predicted they would keep on rising in the second half of 2011.

Lloyds also said recently that its overall insurance complaints had shot up to 202,384 in the first half of the year, of which PPI was the biggest part.

Santander
By contrast, the Santander banking group has reported a 14% drop in the total number of complaints it received in the first half of 2011.

They fell to 168,888 from 195,475 in the second half of 2010 . New complaints to Santander are now 31% lower than they were a year ago.

A bank spokesman explained that, unlike other banks, it had not been a party to the banking industry's legal action over PPI complaints, and had not put them on hold when they came in during the court case.
As a result, it has not had to deal with a big backlog.

Although most of Santander's new insurance complaints relate to PPI, they fell from 18,588 in the second half of 2010 to 16,431 in the first half of this year.

Huge bill
Not all PPI complaints from customers will lead to a bank offering a compensation payment.

Those who are turned down have the right to pursue their complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), which has often found in favour of complainants.

At the start of August, the FOS revealed that it had been receiving 900 fresh PPI complaints every day and that these now made up 65% of its total workload. It has found in favour of customers in 55% of cases. The result has been a huge bill for the banks.

Lloyds has set aside £3.2bn for compensation payments, Barclays £1bn, RBS group £850m, Santander £731m and HSBC £269m.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14748374

[The Debt Star]

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

I knew I'd be in the 3% that wasn't

[di30]

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

I knew I'd be in the 3% that wasn't

TDS, no spoken to you in a long time, how is your case going? the one in with the FOS?

[The Debt Star]

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

TDS, no spoken to you in a long time, how is your case going? the one in with the FOS?

Hi. Oh, nothing but grief and strife! The FOS adjudicated in my favour back in February. Agreed the PPI had been mis-sold and asked me to agree to the settlement and then Egg would send calculations and compensate me. So I did. It took Egg til the end of April to reduce my loan by £400 and to offer £100 stat interest direct.

Bill and I have worked out that the loan should have been reduced by more than £1K and that I should have more than double the stat interest.

So I have had to go back to the FOS who have only now received a response to our calculations from Egg. In the meantime Egg sold the loan to Arrow.

Egg have told the FOS that their figures are correct and ours are wrong.

The Bank has not supplied any detailed calculations or methodology justifying its sums, just lists of figures.

So 18 months since first complaining about the PPI I am no nearer a resolution despite the FOS adjudication and despite the fact that the FOS provided clear directions to the Bank as to how it should have put me back in the position I would have been in "but for" the mis-sold PPI. This included a refund of the carry-over of PPI premioums from the older loan that contained the single premium PPI to the later consolidation loan without PPI.