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

steveh31

No I cannot post links because I'm classsed as a new user and new users cannot post links in case we are spammers:D

di3004

steveh31 wrote: »

No I cannot post links because I'm classsed as a new user and new users cannot post links in case we are spammers:D

Really?:eek: I did not know that lol........:o:D

Cardinals

For info - Bank of America (MBNA) have posted their results in the States.

There is a $592 million reserve related to paying PPI claims. This is the reclaim element, not paying the insurance product as a result of claims under the policy, as that is covered off balance sheet.

They would of course have to account for this irrespective of the JR but it gives you an idea of the volume of claims they expect.

Cheers

amersall

"The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is pressing ahead with new guidance on handling and redressing customer complaints about payment protection insurance (PPI), despite industry criticism that the measures are inappropriate and disproportionate.
But the regulator has dropped a proposed rule that would have required firms to review all the PPI mis-selling complaints they have rejected since 2005. Nor is it planning to implement an industry-wide review of past business under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA)."

Correct me if i am wrong, but isnt this what the banks want? so if that is right the court action by the banks will be dropped?.

Cardinals

amersall wrote: »

"The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is pressing ahead with new guidance on handling and redressing customer complaints about payment protection insurance (PPI), despite industry criticism that the measures are inappropriate and disproportionate.
But the regulator has dropped a proposed rule that would have required firms to review all the PPI mis-selling complaints they have rejected since 2005. Nor is it planning to implement an industry-wide review of past business under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA)."

Correct me if i am wrong, but isnt this what the banks want? so if that is right the court action by the banks will be dropped?.

The issue is that PS10/12 requires that a Lender will need consider whether to take unilateral action in redressing consumers where there has been a systemic failure in sales or other processes.

The Lenders consider that this a review by the back door.

marshallka

amersall wrote: »

"The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is pressing ahead with new guidance on handling and redressing customer complaints about payment protection insurance (PPI), despite industry criticism that the measures are inappropriate and disproportionate.
But the regulator has dropped a proposed rule that would have required firms to review all the PPI mis-selling complaints they have rejected since 2005. Nor is it planning to implement an industry-wide review of past business under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA)."

Correct me if i am wrong, but isnt this what the banks want? so if that is right the court action by the banks will be dropped?.

Amersall, where you got that from?

amersall

marshallka wrote: »

Amersall, where you got that from?

Hi, post 349 on here, first section x.

marshallka

amersall wrote: »

Hi, post 349 on here, first section x.

Going to try and find the definate link. BRB

I noted the comment about "spammers" LOL.

Do you think its true?

Its here
http://www.out-law.com/page-10509

Alpine_Star

The section of the article amersall posted is from August and predates the BBA's Judicial Review application.

marshallka

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The section of the article amersall posted is from August and predates the BBA's Judicial Review application.

Thanks Alpine Star... does this mean that the FSA had dropped their proposals to make companies open up old complaints then? This is confusing?