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

Alpine_Star

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?

The Out-Law article itself explains what is being challenged:

''The BBA wants the court to review both the FSA’s and FOS's approach to PPI sales complaints. It claims the regulator is seeking to apply higher sales standards for PPI than were in the Handbook at the time the sales were made and that this will set a precedent for other products regulated by the FSA.'' http://www.out-law.com/page-10509

The 'dropped rules' that the FSA told petecorfu about are old news. The FSA are hardly likely to disclose sensitive and controversial policy changes to an anonymous soul in a telephone enquiry ahead of any official announcement.

marshallka

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The Out-Law article itself explains what is being challenged:

''The BBA wants the court to review both the FSA’s and FOS's approach to PPI sales complaints. It claims the regulator is seeking to apply higher sales standards for PPI than were in the Handbook at the time the sales were made and that this will set a precedent for other products regulated by the FSA.'' http://www.out-law.com/page-10509

The 'dropped rules' that the FSA told petecorfu about are old news. The FSA are hardly likely to disclose sensitive and controversial policy changes to an anonymous soul in a telephone enquiry ahead of any official announcement.

But it also says

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)."


Its so confusing...???

amersall

steveh31 wrote: »

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

No worries, it is not your fault . The fsa need to keep consumers more up to date and then we all wouldnt be "chasing our tails" looking for up to date info.

amersall

marshallka wrote: »

But it also says

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)."


Its so confusing...???

:wall:Hear. hear. Confusing does not come anywhere near it :doh:

Alpine_Star

marshallka wrote: »

But it also says

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)."


Its so confusing...???

Yes but this is distinct from the FSA ''seeking to apply higher sales standards for PPI than were in the Handbook at the time the sales were made...''

But until the JR court papers are released - within the next 2 weeks - that's all we have to go on I'm afraid.

maxdp

Have today received in my LLOYDS Business Bank Account the PPI claimed back on Business Loan was old Loancheck which then went through FOS . Got in touch with my Business Bank Manager earlier this week to ask it this would be affected. We signed the acceptance forms late Sept and sent them back to FOS. So it looks like they are still paying out unless this is just because my Bank Manager was involved. So fingers crossed all those waiting.

debt55

maxdp wrote: »

Have today received in my LLOYDS Business Bank Account the PPI claimed back on Business Loan was old Loancheck which then went through FOS . Got in touch with my Business Bank Manager earlier this week to ask it this would be affected. We signed the acceptance forms late Sept and sent them back to FOS. So it looks like they are still paying out unless this is just because my Bank Manager was involved. So fingers crossed all those waiting.

Said this soooo many times on this thread already.

If you have been made an offer, you WILL be paid!

So relax folks.

IanW1983

maxdp wrote: »

Have today received in my LLOYDS Business Bank Account the PPI claimed back on Business Loan was old Loancheck which then went through FOS . Got in touch with my Business Bank Manager earlier this week to ask it this would be affected. We signed the acceptance forms late Sept and sent them back to FOS. So it looks like they are still paying out unless this is just because my Bank Manager was involved. So fingers crossed all those waiting.

That's reassuring, I'm currently waiting for my refund after sending off my acceptance forms at the end of Sept as well! The 28 days for receiving payment is up on Monday.

petecorfu

once again they are dropping those 2 new rules! they are the ones the bank are throwing there toys out the pram about! i had it personally confrimed by the fsa yesterday after being on hold for 27 mins while one person consulted another! there words were " the information on the outlaw site is CORRECT" even the press office at the bba didn know about this until i copied and pasted the web page to them!
This means the bank/bba must stop this court case! if they dont, then there is another "bankcharges" type money backhanders thing going on!

Cardinals

petecorfu wrote: »

once again they are dropping those 2 new rules! they are the ones the bank are throwing there toys out the pram about! i had it personally confrimed by the fsa yesterday after being on hold for 27 mins while one person consulted another! there words were " the information on the outlaw site is CORRECT" even the press office at the bba didn know about this until i copied and pasted the web page to them!
This means the bank/bba must stop this court case! if they dont, then there is another "bankcharges" type money backhanders thing going on!

I think you may find that they are referring to the two rules relating to unilateral retrospective redress proposed in CP09/23 which were then dropped from PS 10/12 following industry representations.