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

whizzkid001

Latest from Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/8067126/PPI-delays-after-banks-dig-heels-on-complaints.html

I particularly like this bit, "Consumer groups urged those people mis-sold PPI to be persistent. Ms Lipszyc said: "The FSA is facing a revolt from those it regulates and it is understood that the regulator is considering strong action." She said she understood the FSA was considering whether to file an injunction against the banks."

I say go for it!

marshallka

whizzkid001 wrote: »

Latest from Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/8067126/PPI-delays-after-banks-dig-heels-on-complaints.html

I particularly like this bit, "Consumer groups urged those people mis-sold PPI to be persistent. Ms Lipszyc said: "The FSA is facing a revolt from those it regulates and it is understood that the regulator is considering strong action." She said she understood the FSA was considering whether to file an injunction against the banks."

I say go for it!

Should be interesting then!!

ankerbankers

kpwll wrote: »

I wouldn't give Lloyds any more wriggle room than the Chilean miners had in their pod, to be honest.

Brillant quote kpwll, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could:rotfl::T pop Eric Daniels down there before they seal it and leave him there!!!!

The co-operative has also joined this outrage, cannot believe it from the so called " ETHICAL BANK". I for one will be also boycotting their shop forever!!!

marshallka

I still think that if your complaint is regarding a policy sold after Jan 2005 (FSA rules) then they WILL pay out regardless and it will be before the review.

IF your complaint is upheld at FOS and even the Ombudsman has upheld it, BUT it was regarding a complaint for a policy that was sold prior to 2005 then I think they will kick up a fuss on these and as yet, they will not pay out until after the review... just my view here.

All the above though is IF the FSA don't file the injunction like said in the above report but seems a good chance they will me thinks!!! Perhaps they will go out with a bang after all!!!

marshallka

singlep wrote: »

The act of parliament, the Regulated Activities Order, 2000, for financial services has very strict behavioural rules for the owners of firms who hold more than 10 or 20% of shares. The FSA refers to them as Controllers. In the case of Lloyds and RBS the Government is the Controller and should be asked to state why it supports the PPI complaints freeze. No bank should be able to request a judicial review without the support of their largest shareholder No doubt the Gov will claim some obscure exemption but we should write to our MPs and demand an explanation. (This was not possible for bank charges as it is not a regulated product). Will the FSA ask the Gov/Controller to explain? Perhaps Martin will produce a template letter for MPs?

Got a reply to this as follows

Interesting but the govt has already said it will allow the semi-state owned banks to operate independently without interference - think its a very very long shot Im afraid ...

any thoughts

grasshopper1927

I spoke to adjudicator at FOS today who has upheld my case against lloyds, he said the message they have been given is business as usual. My complaint is waiting to be asigned to an ombudsman as lloyds didnt reply within the allocated 2 weeks, but he said they are reviewing the cases constantly, and the spreadsheet him and his staff use is updated every day including today with cases that lloyds have agreed to settle.

If lloyds have agreed to settle some cases today then there may be a glimmer of hope..

ankerbankers

marshallka wrote: »

I still think that if your complaint is regarding a policy sold after Jan 2005 (FSA rules) then they WILL pay out regardless and it will be before the review.

IF your complaint is upheld at FOS and even the Ombudsman has upheld it, BUT it was regarding a complaint for a policy that was sold prior to 2005 then I think they will kick up a fuss on these and as yet, they will not pay out until after the review... just my view here.

All the above though is IF the FSA don't file the injunction like said in the above report but seems a good chance they will me thinks!!! Perhaps they will go out with a bang after all!!!

Are you still waffling marshallka!

Elig_3

marshallka wrote: »

I still think that if your complaint is regarding a policy sold after Jan 2005 (FSA rules) then they WILL pay out regardless and it will be before the review.

IF your complaint is upheld at FOS and even the Ombudsman has upheld it, BUT it was regarding a complaint for a policy that was sold prior to 2005 then I think they will kick up a fuss on these and as yet, they will not pay out until after the review... just my view here.

All the above though is IF the FSA don't file the injunction like said in the above report but seems a good chance they will me thinks!!! Perhaps they will go out with a bang after all!!!

What if they have sent the customer written confirmation that they will uphold their complaint - but are now not paying out........where does the customer stand....

rhoobarbcrumble

As I posted earlier, my husband had written confirmation, also a letter stating the amount that was to go into his account(within 45 days). This policy was sold after Jan 2005, yet they have told us today that it has been frozen and he will be refunded after the review.
LLoydsTSB upheld this complaint themselves, we didn't have to go to the FOS.

marshallka

Elig wrote: »

What if they have sent the customer written confirmation that they will uphold their complaint - but are now not paying out........where does the customer stand....

I would think if Lloyds (or your bank whoever it may be) have actually sent written confirmation it will be paid then they will pay and cannot really get out of it.

I was meaning whereby the Ombudsman has ruled in favour but even after that Lloyds have spat out their dummy and said no, then I would think they could say that these complaints are part of the review. From posts on here they argue things even when the Ombudsman has ruled the same as the Adjudicator and does anyone ever find out their reasons for this? Could these type complaints be the ones they are saying are part of the JR perhaps?