MSE News: Banks put PPI claims on hold in defiance of regulator

di3004

rhoobarbcrumble wrote: »

Sorry, I should of mentioned that my husbands complaint was upheld by Lloyds themselves. It never went to the FOS.
Will that make a difference if they say everything is on hold?

It shouldn't do, no matter with the FOS or them direct, they still upheld your hubby's case.;)

mrs_skint

Basically, it's settled, and they should honour that.

rhoobarbcrumble

Well, the lady at Lloyds did say he would get his refund eventually, after the court case.

Jalapee

i think we should all pay a visit to lloyds head office! lol

marshallka

As regards the cases settled at FOS themselves IF they were upheld for reasons that Lloyds believe to be unjustifiable (I am not saying they were either only that Lloyds believe it!!) then it could be that if they win their argument they will not pay out. As singlep mentioned yesterday, FOS may uphold complaints and Lloyds may not pay out. I think this may be the case with "some" complaints, especially early sold policies. (pre regulations!!)

NIGELK_3

marshallka wrote: »

As regards the cases settled at FOS themselves IF they were upheld for reasons that Lloyds believe to be unjustifiable (I am not saying they were either only that Lloyds believe it!!) then it could be that if they win their argument they will not pay out. As singlep mentioned yesterday, FOS may uphold complaints and Lloyds may not pay out. I think this may be the case with "some" complaints, especially early sold policies. (pre regulations!!)

It has gone very quiet on the FSA and Financial Ombudsman front. Are they just going to let the BBA get away with putting certain PPI claims on hold or actually remind them of their quote of last week that "PPI claims should till be handed until court case" I have emailed both organisations to ask but no response so far. What's the point of having a regulator if it is actually toothless??

maxdp

Have e mailed my Lloyds Business Bank Manager to clear up what is happening. He has been really good and really supportive, so far. As it is Friday he will be out for a loooooong lunch I am sure so it may take a while before he replies.

debt55

rhoobarbcrumble wrote: »

Well, the lady at Lloyds did say he would get his refund eventually, after the court case.

the spoon jobsworth you spoke to at lloyds is 100% wrong, she is muddled.

if you have has an acceptance form, you will be paid!

be patient, this is confirmed by lloyds at a decent level.

the morons on the phones... are just that... morons!

Krammer10

OK Lets review this logically and sensibly.
1. The BBA have launched a judicial review
2. A Judicial review can only be brought forward for one of the following reasons:
(a) Illegality, Where they (The FSA & FOS) have exercised their power wrongly, it is misdirected in law or is ultra vires
(b) Procedural unfairness – Arising from an absence of natural justice, EG Bias, or where the consultation was not correctly observed
(c) Legitimate expectation
(d) Irrationality

Of the 4 reasons for bringing a judicial review, I can only see that they had done so under point (D) Irrationality the test for irrationality is that it must be “ So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.”

Whilst I can’t find the exact basis of the review, it must be assumed that the other 3 reasons are precluded.
From the information circulating and the press release from the BBA it seems their argument is based on irrationality of retrospective regulation. E.G. Applying ICOB based regulation to policies sold prior to 2005 or alternatively further information provided by the FSA in their ‘ Guiding principles’
Common sense tells you that the BBA or its members cannot challenge policies sold post 2005 and subject to the FSMA 2000 and the ICOB regulations.
The heads of claim most commonly cited are for procedural breaches in relation to ICOB or the general conduct of business rules; EG TCF, information provided in a clear, fair & non-misleading manner, correct disclosure & due diligence.
We work on a consultancy basis with a number of large CMC’s throughout the UK, and the advice they have been provided by counsel, BBA and FSA is that only a small minority of claims will be caught up under the judicial review. Previous posts are correct in that those caught up will struggle to even be litigated as essentially, judges would be reluctant to make a decision were a judicial review could supersede it.
I have seen no formal press release from Lloyds suggesting that Lloyds will stop ALL claims, they state “Complaints which are affected by the review are only being processed up to a point”
There have been comparisons drawn between recent events with Lloyds and the Bank Charges debacle; however, the differences between the two are striking. Bank charges never had the strong backing the FSA or FOS, as PPI does. In addition the majority of bank charge claims were always viewed by the courts as opportunistic and were generally dealt with as such. PPI Claims however have a solid legal & equitable grounding. So comparisons between the two is frankly like comparing apples & oranges.
My clients have not been concerned about Lloyds statement or the BBA JR. It might take a strong nerve to keep going if you are unsure, but I think anyone thinking about walking away from the industry will be kicking themselves by Christmas !!!

debt55

Krammer10 wrote: »

OK Lets review this logically and sensibly.
1. The BBA have launched a judicial review
2. A Judicial review can only be brought forward for one of the following reasons:
(a) Illegality, Where they (The FSA & FOS) have exercised their power wrongly, it is misdirected in law or is ultra vires
(b) Procedural unfairness – Arising from an absence of natural justice, EG Bias, or where the consultation was not correctly observed
(c) Legitimate expectation
(d) Irrationality

Of the 4 reasons for bringing a judicial review, I can only see that they had done so under point (D) Irrationality the test for irrationality is that it must be “ So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.”

Whilst I can’t find the exact basis of the review, it must be assumed that the other 3 reasons are precluded.
From the information circulating and the press release from the BBA it seems their argument is based on irrationality of retrospective regulation. E.G. Applying ICOB based regulation to policies sold prior to 2005 or alternatively further information provided by the FSA in their ‘ Guiding principles’
Common sense tells you that the BBA or its members cannot challenge policies sold post 2005 and subject to the FSMA 2000 and the ICOB regulations.
The heads of claim most commonly cited are for procedural breaches in relation to ICOB or the general conduct of business rules; EG TCF, information provided in a clear, fair & non-misleading manner, correct disclosure & due diligence.
We work on a consultancy basis with a number of large CMC’s throughout the UK, and the advice they have been provided by counsel, BBA and FSA is that only a small minority of claims will be caught up under the judicial review. Previous posts are correct in that those caught up will struggle to even be litigated as essentially, judges would be reluctant to make a decision were a judicial review could supersede it.
I have seen no formal press release from Lloyds suggesting that Lloyds will stop ALL claims, they state “Complaints which are affected by the review are only being processed up to a point”
There have been comparisons drawn between recent events with Lloyds and the Bank Charges debacle; however, the differences between the two are striking. Bank charges never had the strong backing the FSA or FOS, as PPI does. In addition the majority of bank charge claims were always viewed by the courts as opportunistic and were generally dealt with as such. PPI Claims however have a solid legal & equitable grounding. So comparisons between the two is frankly like comparing apples & oranges.
My clients have not been concerned about Lloyds statement or the BBA JR. It might take a strong nerve to keep going if you are unsure, but I think anyone thinking about walking away from the industry will be kicking themselves by Christmas !!!

it's all about time delay tactics, they cannot win in court

otherwiser what happens to the 24M they have already been fined by the FSA?

and all the complaints upheld.. not gestures of goodwill, but they state "complaint upheld" ?

they know the score, this is all about killing a couple of high profile claims companies who cannot live for 6 months without revenues coming in.