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......

...only a fool would take a PPI case to court. The FOS, although slow, is the only realistic option.

Maybe it's my senility (BLOCK Capitals, and all...) - but are we now in danger of the FOS using this in order to 'cut us off at the pass' ?

IE., could we be in danger of the FOS now 'backing out of the limelight,' and thus leaving us with no option ? Betrayed by those whom we pay to protect us.

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?"

What's Latin for "Bar Stewards" ??

Aaaah...it's in the family motto, of course. "Non illegitimo desperandum.'

Mea culpa...!!!

[seller 17]

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

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/999.html

I've said it before and I'll say it again - only a fool would take a PPI case to court. The FOS, although slow, is the only realistic option.[/quote]

Absolutely spot on.

In my view he would of won it at FOS as well.

[EXC]

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

Maybe it's my senility (BLOCK Capitals, and all...) - but are we now in danger of the FOS using this in order to 'cut us off at the pass' ?

IE., could we be in danger of the FOS now 'backing out of the limelight,' and thus leaving us with no option ? Betrayed by those whom we pay to protect us.

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?"

What's Latin for "Bar Stewards" ??

Aaaah...it's in the family motto, of course. "Non illegitimo desperandum.'

Mea culpa...!!!

I'm not quite with you here Bill. How do you mean?

[Bill-K]

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

I'm not quite with you here Bill. How do you mean?

I must admit, I got a little bit 'cross,' and waxed too lyrical, perhaps. My experience of the FOS has been that they will do ANYTHING to avoid 'going out on a limb.' I have to sympathise with the guys, because they are (I believe) funded by those whom they are supposed to police - the banks. But the reality is that they are funded by you and I ultimately, of course. They tread a narrow path, yet they are not there to make 'leading edge' decisions, are they ? They rely on what the FSA and the Law dictates.

The FSA recently, in Disp App 3.3, decreed:

3.3 The approach to considering evidence
Where a complaint is made, the firm should assess the complaint fairly, giving appropriate weight and balanced consideration to all available evidence, including what the complainant says and other information about the sale that the firm identifies.

The firm is not expected automatically to assume that there has been a breach or failing.

The firm should not rely solely on the detail within the wording of a policy's terms and conditions to reject what a complainant recalls was said during the sale.

The firm should recognise that oral evidence may be sufficient evidence and not dismiss evidence from the complainant solely because it is not supported by documentary proof.

The firm should take account of a complainant's limited ability fully to articulate his complaint or to explain his actions or decisions made at the time of the sale.

Where the complainant's account of events conflicts with the firm's own records or leaves doubt, the firm should assess the reliability of the complainant's account fairly and in good faith.
The firm should make all reasonable efforts (including by contact with the complainant where necessary) to clarify ambiguous issues or conflicts of evidence before making any finding against the complainant.

The firm should not reject a complainant's account of events solely on the basis that the complainant signed documentation relevant to the purchase of the policy.

The firm should not reject a complaint because the complainant failed to exercise the right to cancel the policy.

The firm should not consider that a successful claim by the complainant is, in itself, sufficient evidence that the complainant had a need for the policy or had understood its terms or would have bought it regardless of any breach or failing by the firm.

The firm should not draw a negative inference from a complainant not having kept documentation relating to the purchase of the policy for any particular period of time.

All paragraphs included for completeness above, but there are some that I believe that this judgement may well - NOW - throw into question.

I agree with what seems to be the general consensus that Jones should not have taken this to court, but we now seem to be left with the fallout (the precursorial name 'Rankine' springs eerily to mind, here).

If the FOS are our 'watchers' - then who watches THEM ?

Those who handed down this judgement, I believe.

I need to say that I have about as much sympathy for Jones as I had for Rankine - but - the Law being the reliably stubborn ass that it is - we are now subject to an even harder @$$-kicking, thanks to the likes of Jones & Rankine.

[di30]

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

A slight change of subject here, but have been reading up on some posts OTR and it appears that Deloittes are being used to help with Lloyds backlogs, this would also apply to Halifax etc as well then.

Deloittes as many will know are normally used by The Financial Compensation Scheme (FSCS) and do the main of the work for the organisation.

Also read, that if your case has been waiting for a payouts for a certain amount of time via Lloyds, then further redress will apply, yet it remains to be seen I suppose.
If this is the fact, then it should apply to all banks.

[EXC]

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

All paragraphs included for completeness above, but there are some that I believe that this judgement may well - NOW - throw into question.

I just can't see that at all.

A judgment or the law (as it stands) can have no bearing on the requirements of DISP - which are complaints handing regulations - or how they should be applied.

[di30]

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

How true this is folks I do not know, but I will only believe it when its announced in concrete!
It does make me wonder why Lloyds are using Deloittes though, (these manage for the FSCS for companies gone under).

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...1#post48217339

Post number: 492

[EXC]

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

Immediately after the Judicial Review judgment there was quite a lot of talk of banks outsourcing PPI complaints work to comply with the FSA's timescales as it was quicker and cheaper than taking on and training new staff. As Deloittes already provides exactly this service to FSCS they would be a natural choice for some banks.

As for the character on MSE who claims Lloyds going ''bankrupt'' it's worth noting that all he appears to be going on is someone else's crystal ball and his own imagination.

It's also worth remembering that the EU are forcing Lloyds to sell 600 of their branches (which includes their customers and their deposits) which will realise many billions of pounds, making them cash rich in comparison to their competitors.

[Bill-K]

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

A judgment or the law (as it stands) can have no bearing on the requirements of DISP - which are complaints handing regulations - or how they should be applied.

What I was really saying was that Disp App 3.3.2 & 5 (in particular) seem to protect claimants from being 'fobbed off' by the banks and the FOS who may say that all the detail was there in the small print, and the claimant signed the document:

Disp App 3.3.2 & 5:
The firm should not rely solely on the detail within the wording of a policy's terms and conditions to reject what a complainant recalls was said during the sale.

The firm should not reject a complainant's account of events solely on the basis that the complainant signed documentation relevant to the purchase of the policy.

... and that Disp App 3.3.3 & 8 (in particular) seem to protect claimants from having their claim dismissed because of their failure or inability to produce documentary evidence, or to clearly state their case:

Disp App 3.3.3 & 8:
The firm should recognise that oral evidence may be sufficient evidence and not dismiss evidence from the complainant solely because it is not supported by documentary proof.
The firm should take account of a complainant's limited ability fully to articulate his complaint or to explain his actions or decisions made at the time of the sale.

The firm should not draw a negative inference from a complainant not having kept documentation relating to the purchase of the policy for any particular period of time.

My fear is that this judgement may now limit the effectiveness of - or adherence to - these guidelines. Such guidelines must be lawful, of course, and may be considered by a court of law in passing judgement - so, to my mind, there is an inter-dependence. Ultimately - and in theory - if we are not happy that the guidelines have been adhered to, then we can seek legal enforcement of them. This judgement now seems to me to give the FOS an excuse to effectively ignore some of the guidelines, knowing that the courts will not enforce them.

......But that of course is just my take on this, and I bow to EXC's wider view and better grasp of this stuff. Hopefully, I'm just expressing an ill-founded and ill-informed fear - and I'm happy to leave it at that.

[Angry Cat]

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

Banks will be good citizens | Bob Diamond | Comment is free | The Guardian

The only way that banks will win back the public's trust is to become better citizens. That starts with how we behave, and in demonstrating we act with trust and integrity. At banks this means the interests of customers and clients must be at the very heart of every decision made

[leclerc]

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

........which we know will is highly unlikely. Profits on the other hand will drive them


As a complete aside, Lloyds finally paid out for my mother so it only took 9 weeks from acceptance to payout, lol!!!

[seller 17]

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

Immediately after the Judicial Review judgment there was quite a lot of talk of banks outsourcing PPI complaints work to comply with the FSA's timescales as it was quicker and cheaper than taking on and training new staff. As Deloittes already provides exactly this service to FSCS they would be a natural choice for some banks.

As for the character on MSE who claims Lloyds going ''bankrupt'' it's worth noting that all he appears to be going on is someone else's crystal ball and his own imagination.

It's also worth remembering that the EU are forcing Lloyds to sell 600 of their branches (which includes their customers and their deposits) which will realise many billions of pounds, making them cash rich in comparison to their competitors.

------------------------------------

Deloitte dont just provide for the FSCS, they also provde consultants for the FOS as a friend of mine worked on PPI cases their, so in my view the fact that they are providing for L/TSB is nothing to get over concerned about.

[dogtired]

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

Further to the "Welcome Financial" sage and disputed PPI/unenforceable alleged debt.
We have had so far had three lots of letters from "Incasso" claiming that they are "collecting on behalf of our clients" I have sent them on each occasions prove it letters.
However today two phone calls home number (number withheld, luckily still able to "bar" it with choose to refuse") but they called my partners work.
The calls go to the main office not the work shop and from memory they should not do this if they continue what shall we do.
The complaint is still on going with FOS

[Angry Cat]

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

Do you feel sympathetic towards António Horta-Osório? | Business | guardian.co.uk

[leclerc]

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

Do you feel sympathetic towards António Horta-Osório? | Business | guardian.co.uk

Clearly Santander were a smaller operation and easier to deal with but that would suggest that asking for a leave of absence due to stress means that he is not really the right person for the job and I think Lloyds headhunted him