PPI news thread

pinknico

Brilliant news that Di, and about time the FSA got tough.

di3004

Now they are really taking this seriously.......:T:T:T.

Shame for the ones though where the busnesses have dissolved, and cannot be resolved, through the FSCS either, unless rules have changed for that as well somehow, or may this is why the FOS now states to pursue through the insurer instead.;)

tempsc

Did anyone see this today?? V important to me as an MBNA customer.

=======
A woman has won a "landmark" legal victory after a judge quashed her £8,000 credit card debt after she was wrongly sold payment protection insurance (PPI).

Published: 12:01PM BST 01 Oct 2009

MBNA ignored the cardholder's request not to take out payment protection insurance Photo: PA



A county court judge ruled that Lynne Thorius, 49, was charged thousands of pounds by MBNA for an insurance policy she had never asked for.

The ruling could open the floodgates for millions of pounds' worth of similar claims against banks and building societies by anyone who has been mis-sold a PPI policy.

Related Articles

• Thousands of rejected PPI complaints to be reopened
• Banks to tighten lending criteria on loans and reduce credit card limits
• Banks to reduce card limits
• PPI: you are 90pc certain to get a refund
• Banks abandon 'single-premium' PPI

It is estimated that around 40m PPI policies have been sold in Britain in the past six years alone, making this the second biggest-selling insurance product on the market.

Ms Thorius, a mother of three, applied for the card – which was branded Sunderland ASC but financed by MBNA – in July 2002. She ticked the box that said "no thank you" to payment protection insurance on the application form but the policy was initiated anyway with a £20-a-month charge.

The card had a limit of £1,500 and Ms Thorius, a cleaning supervisor of South Shields in Tyne-and-Wear, used it "here and there" to pay bills and buy gifts. But the credit limit was gradually extended and she became nearly £7,000 in debt.

She said: "I didn't particularly want a credit card and I certainly didn't want PPI. That alone was costing me a fair few pounds a month. When I noticed it on the statement, I rang them and told them I didn't want it.

They said I wouldn't have got the card if I didn't tick the 'yes' box.
"When I tried to explain that I hadn't, they just wouldn't listen."
Ms Thorius, whose PPI charge was gradually increased to £30, even tried to make a claim on the policy when her work hours were cut, but her claim was turned down. She contacted Cartel Client Review, a Manchester-based claims management company, in December 2008.
MBNA then launched a separate action against Lynne to sue her for arrears totalling £8,686.90.

After a nine-hour hearing at Newcastle-upon-Tyne County Court on September 21, Deputy District Judge Jacqueline Smart ruled that the PPI policy had been unfairly imposed. She also threw out the rest of MBNA's case against Ms Thorius.

Ms Thorius said: "MBNA treated me appallingly from start to finish. I ticked no on the PPI option but they applied it to my account anyway."
Carl Wright of Cartel Client Review said the ruling was a legal first. "This is the first time that a judge has ruled on this point and it will have a massive impact," he said.
"Consumers now have the authority of the court to bring a claim in such a way that banks and credit card companies will be unable to defend it. MBNA acted in a disgusting manner.

"Now Lynne has won, the floodgates could open for millions of other people. This is a massive victory. It will change the way banks lend money and issue credit cards. We went to court because we knew we had a strong case.

Earlier this week the Financial Services Authority ordered 185,000 rejected complaints of PPI mis-selling to be reopened.
Jon Pain, the FSA's managing director of retail markets, said: "Consumers should not be pressured or deceived into buying PPI and they are entitled to have a policy properly explained to them.
"It is unacceptable that despite previous warnings about pool sales practices, backed by 22 enforcement cases and significant fines, the PPI sector still needs the FSA to intervene on this."

A spokesman for MBNA said: "Cases in the County Court are not precedent-setting. Any such cases are decided on their individual merits and no two cases are the same."

================
:j

langfor

I was made bankrupt in April 2006 which ended April this year. 95% of this dept was taken out the PPI, therefore would i have a claim against these companies toget this cash back and therefore ensure that all data on my credit report shows as paid except as being part settled?

Just a thought for all those out there that might be in the same position or might be looking at Bankruptcy in your in this situation.

marshallka

langfor wrote: »

I was made bankrupt in April 2006 which ended April this year. 95% of this dept was taken out the PPI, therefore would i have a claim against these companies toget this cash back and therefore ensure that all data on my credit report shows as paid except as being part settled?

Just a thought for all those out there that might be in the same position or might be looking at Bankruptcy in your in this situation.

You could certainly make complaints for any PPI and then like you say, start to repair your credit report.

Do you have all the details on how to go about it. If you take a look through the guide then this will give you an idea if you have claims and how to go about doing it.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/ppi-loan-insurance



Don't forget to send any letters by recorded delivery and give each company 8 weeks for a full and final response.

Good luck

langfor

Thanks for this, i personally think those that are thinking of going bankrupt, but have taken ppi, have a good argument to lower their debts wih companies or even wipe them out.

I'm probably too late but hopefully someone else can use this to their advantage...

Please let me know how anyone else gets on, i will... Letters are already waiting for oh to post tomorrow.

GO ON THE WELL!!!

marshallka

langfor wrote: »

Thanks for this, i personally think those that are thinking of going bankrupt, but have taken ppi, have a good argument to lower their debts wih companies or even wipe them out.

I'm probably too late but hopefully someone else can use this to their advantage...

Please let me know how anyone else gets on, i will... Letters are already waiting for oh to post tomorrow.

GO ON THE WELL!!!

And extra good luck to you for bothering to care about getting your debts cleared. Some would want their redress's to use for other things but you have said its to help with your credit score and I admire you for that. :T Wipe the slate clean then.

I really hope you win and get out of your financial difficulties.

di3004

This in today's media here:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/credit-and-loans/ppi-mis-selling/article.html?in_article_id=491448&in_page_id=506&ct=5


Court ruling 'opens way' for PPI claims

Financial Mail
4 October 2009, 9:09am

Guide | Deals

A new and little-tested law could help thousands of borrowers who are fighting to claim refunds of expensive payment protection insurance that was mis-sold to them by banks and credit card companies.

New rules should finally end the loan insurance rip-off. And not before time.

- PPI victory



Lawyers say that a judgment at Newcastle County Court last month, where a £10,000-a-year cleaner won a case against multinational credit card giant MBNA, has opened the way for a wave of new claims against lenders.


PPI, which is sold alongside loans and cards, is meant to pay out if the borrower is unable to meet repayments due to loss of income through injury, illness or redundancy.

But cover can cost thousands of pounds and has often been mis-sold, including to customers who would never be able to claim, such as the retired and unemployed.

The cleaner had racked up debts of more than £8,000, including several thousand pounds of PPI premiums.

She won her case on what MBNA claim was a technicality. But, crucially, during the trial the judge said that MBNA had created an 'unfair relationship'.

MBNA did this by encouraging the borrower to take out PPI, but failing to disclose to her the large commissions it would pocket from the insurer. Such an 'unfair relationship' breaks laws introduced in 2007.

The cleaner was represented by Paul Brant of Oriel Chambers in Liverpool.
Brant is one of the few barristers to specialise in consumer credit law.
MBNA swiftly downplayed the significance of its loss, saying that 'county court judgments do not form binding precedents'.

But the UK's biggest claims management company, Cartel Client Review, which brought the case, has hailed the judgment as a breakthrough.
Its boss Carl Wright says: 'This has massive ramifications. The unfair relationship issue is widely applicable as it underpins almost every sale of PPI.'

The case emerged just as the Financial Services Authority published a report on the handling of PPI-related complaints by lenders.

The FSA has ordered lenders to review more than 185,000 complaints received since July 2007. These are cases that MBNA and the big banks rejected and where the complainant did not pursue the case with the Financial Ombudsman-Service. However, this review has been condemned as insufficiently robust to protect consumers.

Firms will be able to make assumptions on cases without consulting the complainant. And customers who accepted a 'goodwill' payment or partial refund, even where they may have been entitled to more, will not have their cases reviewed. So someone such as Michael Moore (see below) would be excluded.

Steve Bloor of claims management-firm givememymoney.co.uk, which specialises in PPI cases, says lenders will make unfair assumptions when calculating redress.
'There is a danger that firms will use legitimate loopholes to reduce the compensation they have to pay,' he says. Daniella Lipszyc, a solicitor with Ultimate Law in Altrincham, Cheshire, which specialises in consumer litigation against financial firms, agrees that firms will try to wriggle off the hook.

pinknico

"Firms will be able to make assumptions on cases without consulting the complainant. And customers who accepted a 'goodwill' payment or partial refund, even where they may have been entitled to more, will not have their cases reviewed"


Thats not good at all.

marshallka

Firms will be able to make assumptions on cases without consulting the complainant. And customers who accepted a 'goodwill' payment or partial refund, even where they may have been entitled to more, will not have their cases reviewed. So someone such as Michael Moore (see below) would be excluded.


BUT


Victory: Electrician Michael Moore won PPI compensation
Electrician Michael Moore, 47 (pictured above), is one victim of payment protection insurance mis-selling who managed to get financial redress. But it was a battle and he welcomes last week's action by the Financial Services Authority to get tough with providers.
Michael, of Harwich, Essex, complained about the sale of PPI on a loan with Firstplus, part of Barclays, in April 2007.
The total cost of insurance came to more than £5,500 on a £28,000 loan. But the policy lasted only five years, despite the loan's 25-year term, and it had restrictions that meant Michael, who is self-employed and married to Sue, 44, a carer, would probably never have been eligible to claim.
Firstplus offered a part refund. Michael took the cash and did not pursue the case.


However, after being contacted by claims management firm givememy?????? earlier this year he successfully fought the case with the Financial Ombudsman Service and recently won a payout for a full refund on the policy, plus interest and £500 for distress and inconvenience. 'There are probably plenty of people who don't take their case to the Ombudsman so it is good news that lenders will be forced to look at some of those cases they rejected,' says Michael, who has two stepchildren and a son, Tommy, 4.

Complainants who have their PPI case reopened as part of the FSA review will be able to pursue their case to the FOS if they are not happy with the firm's decision.