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

Alpine_Star

marshallka wrote: »

does this mean that the FSA had dropped their proposals to make companies open up old complaints then?

No, just one element of them. They are still required to look at them but deal with them under lesser criteria than the FSA had originally proposed - as Cardinals posted.

petecorfu

iv just got off the phone to fsa! they are indeed dropping those new rules! so this should mean no court case! i hope! but i bet the banks still go ahead as they are breed apart from being fair!

marshallka

petecorfu wrote: »

iv just got off the phone to fsa! they are indeed dropping those new rules! so this should mean no court case! i hope! but i bet the banks still go ahead as they are breed apart from being fair!

But looks like the banks have won on this one then. I just hope its only the new rules they have won on though and not any more. Surely the court case should be dropped then now.. isn't that what they were arguing?

Alpine_Star

petecorfu wrote: »

iv just got off the phone to fsa! they are indeed dropping those new rules! so this should mean no court case! i hope! but i bet the banks still go ahead as they are breed apart from being fair!

They're not dropping the ''new rules'' they are simply not going with one of their proposed changes prior to their August announcement and it has no bearing on the BBA's legal challenge.

marshallka

Alpine_Star wrote: »

They're not dropping the ''new rules'' they are simply not going with one of their proposed changes prior to their August announcement and it has no bearing on the BBA's legal challenge.

BUT according to all the media in this BBA/FSA court case this was what they were challenging? If it was not going to be applied anyway then why are they going to court?

amersall

marshallka wrote: »

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

MMMMMMMM, could well be;):rotfl:

amersall

marshallka wrote: »

BUT according to all the media in this BBA/FSA court case this was what they were challenging? If it was not going to be applied anyway then why are they going to court?

This is what i said, i cannot find that section anywhere on the fsa website so if they have dropped this surely the banks have to drop the court case?.That is if this is right, there is not a lot coming from any governing body about this, and i think consumers should be kept up to date, it comes to something when a website on the net finds out this info before the fsa put it on their website !!

amersall

Alpine_Star wrote: »

They're not dropping the ''new rules'' they are simply not going with one of their proposed changes prior to their August announcement and it has no bearing on the BBA's legal challenge.

This is 2 changes they are dropping.

1) 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.

2) Nor is it planning to implement an industry-wide review of past business under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA)



And the way i read it, this is what the banks are up in arms about, the fact they have to go over old complaints that were rejected, and also,contact all people who in the past who the banks think they may have mis sold ppi to even if they have not complained?. If that is not what the banks are going to court for, then please someone enlighten me and put me out of my misery

steveh31

I apologize if that article wasn't upto date I just found it while googling last night

marshallka

steveh31 wrote: »

I apologize if that article wasn't upto date I just found it while googling last night

No need to apologise Steve. I would have thought the same as you TBH and I found the link on Outlaw dated yesterday. Its just very strange as its not written anywhere else. Very confusing.