PPI Reclaiming successes and failures
Comments
-
Unfortunately the old charges were blocked by the 2009 court case (while it did technically apply to bank charges, the precedent set will be carried over to credit cards, just as the judgement itself relied on precedence).
The full details of how the FOS recommends firms deal with it is linked below, some companies do choose to give 8% anyway
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi/redress.html#redresscc
Again i notice you are saying the Supreme Court Case in 2009 (Bank charges) also set a precedent in relation to credit card fee's - Why do you keep giving out this wrong information ??0 -
Again i notice you are saying the Supreme Court Case in 2009 (Bank charges) also set a precedent in relation to credit card fee's - Why do you keep giving out this wrong information ??
As I have explained to you over and over and over ad infinitum, which you don't seem to understand or wilfully disregard, UK law is based on precedence. Where one case rules XYZ, a future judgement refers to that case as establishing a precedence on such matters and the side referencing it seek to get the same judgement. The 2009 case resulted in a ruling that the bank charges could not be reclaimed on the basis that they were unfair. A similar court action relating to credit card charges would result in an application by the banks to refer to that case and stop the case proceeding.
If you read the ruling properly you will see the banks used numerous previous cases as establishing a precedence.
For example about determining if the charges were considered as penalties and whether they were unenforceable
Point 295
Point 299In order for a provision for payment to be penal, it must provide for payment upon a breach of contract (see Export Credits Guarantee Department v Universal Oil Products Co, [1983] 1 WLR 399) that is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss from the breach but which is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the prospective loss (see Jeancharm Ltd v Barnet Football Club Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 58 at para 27).
In 2009 the decision handed down was that charges were a core term of the contracts therefore under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 reg. 6(2) the charges (in this case unplanned overdraft) were not not capable of assessment so found in the banks favour.299 The Banks emphasise that a Relevant Charge cannot be penal unless it is payable upon a breach by the customer, and illustrate this principle by referring to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Jervis v Harris [1996] Ch 195, which concerned a provision in a lease (clause 2(10)) obliging a tenant to carry out repairs and providing that if he did not do so, the landlord might do the repairs and recover from the tenant the costs and expenses of doing so. This provision was held not to be penal,
That is why I have explained that the precedence of the bank charges ruling would be used if there was any attempt to challenge credit card charges, especially as the banks all reduced the charges.
Think about why, since 2009, no-one has successfully launched a class action suit against the banks for charges of any kind - nobody will take it on because the precedence has been established.
I suggest you take time to read and digest both the the 2009 case (it's 46 pages but I'm sure you will understand it all given your financial background and legal expertise and you can see how they again made reference to precedence)
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2009-0070-judgment.pdf
Also read this simplified guide to precedence in UK law
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/precedents/
As ever, if you feel the ruling by the courts was wrong, simply put up your own money for a new class action suit against the banks for credit card charges and see how far it goes before they dismiss it because of the 2009 ruling establishing the precedent that charges didn't fall under UTCCR 1999 reg. 6(2)0 -
Again i notice you are saying the Supreme Court Case in 2009 (Bank charges) also set a precedent in relation to credit card fee's - Why do you keep giving out this wrong information ??
I think it's largely as a few on here refer to all bank fees as charges, whereas others do not. Hence when an OP comes on here and reports that they have successfully reclaimed packaged account fees or had overlimit fees reimbursed by their bank, someone will immediately reply (usually Moneyineptitude or Nasqueron), "this thread is for reporting PPI successes only" and often 'the banks won in 2009 so...'
Incidentally, the legal terms are Judgment (not Judgement) and precedent (not precedence), but other than that - Nasqueron is on the right lines re the 2009-to date position.
So it's only usually if a bank [the same bank or another] error or fraud caused the bank charges to be incurred, that banks will refund the charges on current accounts and credit cards. Or if eg the (eg mis-sold) packaged account fee imposed caused an overlimit fee to be levied. Such examples are quite rare in recent times. I've only read of a dozen or so on here.Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0 -
Please indicate even one post from myself on this particular thread where I have posted that? I think you'll find that I haven't, nor have I needed to. I think you are confusing this thread with the "Bank Charges" thread.someone will immediately reply (usually Moneyineptitude or Nasqueron), "this thread is for reporting PPI successes only"
0 -
I think it's largely as a few on here refer to all bank fees as charges, whereas others do not. Hence when an OP comes on here and reports that they have successfully reclaimed packaged account fees or had overlimit fees reimbursed by their bank, someone will immediately reply (usually Moneyineptitude or Nasqueron), "this thread is for reporting PPI successes only" and often 'the banks won in 2009 so...'
Incidentally, the legal terms are Judgment (not Judgement) and precedent (not precedence), but other than that - Nasqueron is on the right lines re the 2009-to date position.
So it's only usually if a bank [the same bank or another] error or fraud caused the bank charges to be incurred, that banks will refund the charges on current accounts and credit cards. Or if eg the (eg mis-sold) packaged account fee imposed caused an overlimit fee to be levied. Such examples are quite rare in recent times. I've only read of a dozen or so on here.
Well thanks for the correction on spelling of judgment vs judgement, unfortunately the spell checker auto corrects it, suppose it's better than thinking "unnecessary" means the same as "worthless" no? :beer:
Also the reason for correcting someone who posts, for example, about getting a monthly bank fee back in the bank charges post is that it confuses new users who may misunderstand and think they can get back bank charges. Perhaps you could direct your ire at this site which wrongly uses "reclaim" or "claim" when they mean "complain"0 -
I was sold mortgage protection policy 1993 with Commercial Union Life Assurance,
Is this possible to claim back after all this time ?
Thanks0 -
What was wrong with having life cover on your mortgage?0
-
You can't expect a refund simply because you have not died in the interim period.I was sold mortgage protection policy 1993 with Commercial Union Life Assurance,
Is this possible to claim back after all this time ?
Why else would Life Assurance be refunded?
(This insurance is not PPI)0 -
Well thanks for the correction on spelling of judgment vs judgement
Perhaps you could direct your ire at this site which wrongly uses "reclaim" or "claim" when they mean "complain"
You're welcome for 'precedent' too.
It does not.
Any civil gripe is indeed a claim, whether it is pre-litigated or issued in the County Court - which is why Martin uses the term (correctly). Whether a potential claim has any merit is another issue entirely as explained to yourself previously.
No doubt we hold different views re the respective potential of any claim. But it is merely a fact that they are all claims Indeed, if anyone wishes to seek redress from their ex-boss or the NHS or council, they send a 'Letter of Claim.'Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0 -
I was sold mortgage protection policy 1993 with Commercial Union Life Assurance,
Is this possible to claim back after all this time ?
Thanks
What was wrong with that which makes you think you should have your money back?
This thread is about PPI. Not about life assurance. BTW, you cannot get your car insurance or your house insurance paid back to you either.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards