Tweet
Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......
email them and ask: Customer.Care.Insurance@LloydsTSB.co.uk
Originally posted by burkey
View Post
Loading...
-
"Family means that no one gets forgotten or left behind"
(quote from David Ogden Stiers) -
Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......
See if you can find a normal number by using the "say no to 0850" website. You type in the number and it tells you if there is an alternativeOriginally posted by leclerc View PostThanks!
DebtisbadComment
-
Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......
Judgments Act 1838-
An Act . . for extending the Remedies of Creditors against the Property of Debtors
Sheriff empowered to seize money, bank notes, &c.; and to pay money or bank notes to execution creditor; and to sue for amount secured by bills of exchange and other securities. Proviso as to indemnity for sheriff.
12:-- By virtue of any writ of fieri facias to be sued out of any superior or inferior court, or any precept in pursuance thereof, the high sheriff or other officer having the execution thereof may and shall seize and take any money or bank notes, (whether of the Bank of England, or of any other bank or bankers) and any cheques, bills of exchange, promissory notes, bonds, specialties, or other securities for money, belonging to the person against whose effects such writ of fieri facias shall be sued out; and may and shall pay or deliver to the party suing out such execution any money or bank notes which shall be so seized, or a sufficient part thereof; and may and shall hold any such cheques, bills of exchange, promissory notes, bonds, specialties, or other securities for money as a security or securities for the amount by such writ of fieri facias directed to be levied, or so much thereof as shall not have been otherwise levied and raised; and may sue in the name of such high sheriff or other officer for the recovery of the sum or sums secured thereby, if and when the time of payment thereof shall have arrived; and the payment to such high sheriff or other officer by the party liable on any such cheque, bill of exchange, promissory note, bond, specialty, or other security, with or without suit, or the recovery and levying execution against the party so liable, shall discharge him to the extent of such payment, or of such recovery and levy in execution, as the case may be, from his liability on any such cheque, bill of exchange, promissory note, bond, speciality, or other security; and such high sheriff or other officer may and shall pay over to the party suing out such writ the money so to be recovered, or such part thereof as shall be sufficient to discharge the amount by such writ directed to be levied; and if, after satisfaction of the amount so to be levied, together with sheriff’s poundage and expences, any surplus shall remain in the hands of such high sheriff or other officer, the same shall be paid to the party against whom such writ shall be so issued; provided that no such high sheriff or other officer shall be bound to sue any party liable upon any such cheque, bill of exchange, promissory note, bond, specialty, or other security, unless the party suing out such execution shall enter into a bond, with two sufficient sureties, for indemnifying him from all costs and expences to be incurred in the prosecution of such action, or to which he may become liable in consequence thereof, the expence of such bond to be deducted out of any money to be recovered in such action.
Judgment debts to carry interest.
17:--
(1) Every judgment debt shall carry interest at the rate of 8 pounds per centum per annum from such time as shall be prescribed by rules of court . . .until the same shall be satisfied, and such interest may be levied under a writ of execution on such judgment.
(2) Rules of court may provide for the court to disallow all or part of any interest otherwise payable under subsection (1).
Further information:
http://www.pla.org.uk/__data/assets/...s_Walmsley.pdfComment
-
Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......
Lloyds former CEO is having his bonus witheld over the hit that they took from PPI misselling......breaking news on Sky News at the moment."Family means that no one gets forgotten or left behind"
(quote from David Ogden Stiers)Comment
-
Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......
At last, it has been realised that we should not reward failure with massive bonuses.Originally posted by leclerc View PostThanks!
DebtisbadComment
-
Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......
Originally posted by leclerc View Post
The partly-state-owned Lloyds Banking Group is attempting to withhold as much as half of the £1.45m bonus awarded this year to Eric Daniels, its former chief executive, I can exclusively reveal.
Lawyers acting for Lloyds’ remuneration committee are understood to have informed Daniels and other senior executives last week of the bank’s intention to ‘claw back’ parts of the bonuses announced in February this year.
The decision by Lloyds’ boardroom pay committee has been triggered by the £3.2bn hit that the bank took earlier this year for mis-selling payment protection insurance (PPI), the latest in a series of scandals to hit Britain’s banking sector.
The loss was larger than the City had anticipated and was one of the first significant announcements by Lloyds under Daniels’ successor as chief executive, Antonio Horta-Osorio.
It is understood to be the first time that a high street bank has attempted to invoke a clawback provision in the contract of a main board executive. At Lloyds’ annual meeting in May, Sir Win Bischoff, Lloyds’ chairman, hinted that it would examine such a plan, but last week’s letter provides the first confirmation that it is serious about pursuing it.
“The implications [of the PPI charge] on compensation are being considered by the remuneration committee and will be determined by the board in due course,” Bischoff said at the AGM.
The exact proportion of Daniels’ bonus that Lloyds is trying to claw back is unclear, although I’m told it’s somewhere between one-third and half of the £1.45m he was awarded.
In a statement issued to me, Lloyds said: “This is an ongoing process. If and when there are conclusions reached from this process we would make them available as part of our normal reporting to the market.”
Technically, the money probably won’t have to be reclaimed from Daniels since under the City regulator’s new bonus rules, the majority of bonus payments awarded in one year have to be deferred for several years.
UK Financial Investments, which manages the taxpayer’s stakes in Britain’s bailed-out banks, and the Financial Services Authority are both understood to be aware of Lloyds’ intention.
I’m told that other former senior Lloyds executives, including Helen Weir, who ran the retail banking operation, have received similar letters from the bank. More awkwardly, it’s possible that Tim Tookey, the outgoing finance director and currently Lloyds’ acting chief executive while Horta-Osorio is on a fatigue-induced leave of absence, was also a recipient, although that’s unclear today.
In total, Lloyds’ executive directors were allotted just over £5m in performance-related payments for 2010, although not all of the five directors who shared these awards are likely to be subject to the clawback.
The move is likely to be welcomed by campaigners for boardroom pay reforms. While some FTSE-100 companies now include clawback provisions in the contracts of senior executives, the practice is not sufficiently widespread to have alleviated political pressure for radical change in the way bosses are paid.
Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, will publish proposals to overhaul executive pay early next year.
That pressure is particularly acute in the banking industry, and was heightened yesterday by Sir Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, who reiterated calls for British banks to conserve capital rather than distributing it to employees and shareholders as they attempt to ride out the Eurozone debt crisis.
Analysts tell me that the move by Lloyds will put pressure on other UK banks to adopt the same approach when deciding whether bonuses awarded to their bosses should be reclaimed.
Lloyds’ remuneration committee is chaired by the former fund manager Tony Watson, whose predecessor was derided and eventually forced off the bank’s board for awarding Daniels the maximum possible bonus (which he waived) in a previous annual pay round.
Barclays and HSBC, which also announced large charges for PPI mis-selling, have like Lloyds replaced their chief executives in the last year. It’s conceivable that the bonuses awarded to John Varley, who ran Barclays, and Michael Geoghegan, former chief executive of HSBC, could also be affected, although neither bank would comment today.
It’s easily forgotten given subsequent events but Daniels was for many years regarded as one of the shrewdest bankers in Britain. He took the helm at Lloyds TSB in 2003, and was respected by investors until the bank’s merger with HBOS in late 2008 resulted in the Government taking a 43 per cent stake in the bank (subsequently reduced to 41 per cent).
The exposure to HBOS’s horrendous loan book has so far resulted in more than £50bn in impairment charges and a share price still lagging well below the average price at which the taxpayer bought into the bank.
Between February, when he handed over the reins to Horta-Osorio, and September Daniels was retained as an adviser to the board on a salary understood to be broadly equivalent on a pro rata basis to the £1.035m he received in basic salary in 2010.
Daniels was unavailable for comment today and although I’m told he is not contesting the clawback attempt from his former employer, one friend of his pointed out to me today that PPI was sold entirely legally until the FSA declared it illegal retrospectively.
Lloyds declined to comment beyond the statement I’ve included above. The other Lloyds executives potentially affected by the clawback move could not be reached for comment.
Exclusive: Lloyds To Claw Back Daniels Bonus | lloyds_banking_group | eric_daniels | banks | Kleinman | Sky News BlogsComment
-
Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......
WOW - nifty stuff, AC. I just need to get it translated from the original Shakespearian and Latin 'Patois' !!!Originally posted by Angry Cat View Post
...and I need a spoon...!!!
Comment
-
Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......
Originally posted by EXC View Post
Hello all been busy with a PPI claim that I stupidly thought I could handle myself.
I think I will be in trouble too with my O/H's claim that is in in court as included this along with my own events (main crux)in my own POC against GE Capital/Santander. Oh dear I've received their defence that goes on about this very matter as you have said here. Makes sense now
( Big trouble predicted . I need help desperately please I wish I had looked here first
I have asked Bill to pass this info on in desperation and would very much appreciate some help if its not too late to do something about it. I haven;t started a thread as I am concerned of snooping by them It is under 5K.
MillyComment
-
Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......
[quote=millymollymoo;238018
I have asked Bill to pass this info on in desperation and would very much appreciate some help if its not too late to do something about it. I haven;t started a thread as I am concerned of snooping by them It is under 5K.
Milly[/quote]
I'll see if we can arrange a private thread for you.Comment
-
Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......
Originally posted by EXC View Post
Thank you very much , this would be very much appreciated
Comment
-
Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......
IMPORTANT I actually sent the draft POC to Bill, that was not the one that was used. Ignore that one please.
I will send Bill the correct one (however it still includes the points about the principles )
Comment
-
Re: Blackhorse won't cancel my PPI?
Originally posted by EXC View Post
No it wasn't a mortgage, just a regular loan. When I queried the PPI with them some time ago they said that the premium was paid up front with basically my first 18 months worth of my repayments going to the insurance? Basically I have paid for the insurance with the first year and a halfs repayments so in my mind I should eb able to stop the massive monthly PPI payment part of my loan. I don't understand how they can keep on charging for a service I don't want when I have a claim in to recoup my PPI. Logic would dictate they are better off stopping the payments from the cancelation point as they are only going to have to repay it anyway if the claim is upheld plus interest.Comment
-
Re: Blackhorse won't cancel my PPI?
Have they said this verbally or have they put it in writing?Originally posted by kitchenart View Post
If they have simply verbally told you then ask them to put it in writing(you might want to add, "so my solicitor can look at the reasons"). You might find that the compulsory non cancellable PPI suddenly will come to an end
"Family means that no one gets forgotten or left behind"
(quote from David Ogden Stiers)Comment
-
Re: Blackhorse won't cancel my PPI?
Disregarding what they said about which element of the first 18 months of payments went towards (ie loan repayment or PPI cover) it is not untypical for single premium PPI policies to only cover you for, say, the first two years of a five year loan and so it could be that although the policy has expired you are still paying for the money you borrowed to pay for it and explains why they think you still need to pay.Originally posted by kitchenart View Post
I think you need to find out if the policy is still live. If it is there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to cancel it.Comment
-
Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......
Another day another PPI litigant (and his barrister) loses in court.Comment
Comment