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

debt55

nothing is on hold at llyods anymore according to legal beagles.

marshallka

debt55 wrote: »

nothing is on hold at llyods anymore according to legal beagles.

Have Legal Beagles confirmed this then? I know that it was posted that it was "thought" nothing was on hold but only hearsay wasn't it from a LLoyds employee and nothing been actually formal and final and from solid evidence?

Also would this be "all" complaints being looked into or just the ones that they uphold themselves?

debt55

marshallka wrote: »

Have Legal Beagles confirmed this then? I know that it was posted that it was "thought" nothing was on hold but only hearsay wasn't it from a LLoyds employee and nothing been actually formal and final and from solid evidence?

yes sorry, someone on the legal beagle forum seems to been in touch with the bank.

so nothing in stone, anybody else here know anything?

moderators? martin?

marshallka

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8086462/Lloyds-could-face-1bn-hit-for-misselling.html

Lloyds could face £1bn hit for misselling
Lloyds Banking group could be on the hook for a £1bn charge after misselling credit card insurance, according to a brokers note from Credit Suisse.

mrs-stressed

alx1680 wrote: »

Hi all

Could anyone offer any advice??

I've had a complaint going through the FOS with Lloyds for about 2 and a half years now. Back in April an FOS adjudicator wrote to me to say that they had no response to my complaint from Lloyds whatsoever and that they had found in my favour. It's not a huge amount of money - only £400 but the FOS were also recommending that Lloyds paid me £200 compensation.
After this Lloyds had a month to appeal this in writing before the case was passed to an actual ombudsman to come to a legally binding decision. I am still waiting for that decision now. Although I'm not really concerned that the ombudsman will change their mind - I am worried that Lloyds will now be able to get out of paying me. The FOS says that this won't happen but I'm still not convinced. Is anyone else in this same position?
Any advice would be much appreciated
Thanks
Alex

Hi Alex. I am in the same position as you and I have been there for three years. I have been tooing and frowing so long now and I have a different 'advisor' every single time they write but I havent given up - yet! Mine is only a small amount too but I feel so aggrieved that millions of people who have had far more refunded and I havent got mine, and I have done everything to the book that I could spit with utter frustration and anger. Lloyds bank are without doubt the most dishonest and unreputable bank I am aware of.

Advice? Well, all I know is to keep your finger on the pulse and dont let up. Keep chasing until you get a result. Thats what I am doing.
It is energy draining but I hope you get a good results from all your endeavours.

Mrs s x

TheBigDog

debt55 wrote: »

yes sorry, someone on the legal beagle forum seems to been in touch with the bank.

so nothing in stone, anybody else here know anything?

moderators? martin?

Hi Debt55,

I run a claims company and it's all a little quiet out there, but the facts are becoming a bit clearer.

As far as the Lloyds Group is concerned, they're paying out on ALL agreed claims as promised, whether the offer is through the FOS or directly from a Lloyds Group Company - so that seems to have been cleared up. They're also acknowledging complaints at the moment as per normal, and they're also investigating complaints as well - however, their Legal Team have advised them not to uphold anything at present. So if you're waiting on an existing complaint which hasn't been agreed, then theres going to be a wait until the Legal Team give the go ahead to pay out.

What happens next?

Well, I think that it's down to each Legal Teams interpretation of the BBA's Judicial Challenge. My own personal opinion is that this will happen in the not too distant future:

It appears that the BBA are requesting that the FSA withdraws its policy statement on PS10/12, and they are contesting whether the Financial Regulator has the legal right to implement this policy statement on PPI complaints. In plain terms - the BBA has concerns that the FSA have requested lenders to review past sales against it's new set of rules and regulations. The BBA believes this to be unfair as there is no way any of it's members would have known about the regulation surrounding ICOB when they sold the policy, say, during GISC regulation (GISC rules are much less stringent than ICOB rules).

If the above is correct (and bear in mind that no-one has seen the Application and Grounds from the High Court yet) - then it appears that the complaints directly affected will be sales dated prior to when ICOB became law - ie - prior to 14th January, 2005. I'm saying this because prior to this date, GISC rules and regulations would have been in force, and the BBA have concerns that the FSA want firms to deal with ALL complaints under ICOB directives.

I think that when the dust settles, firms will continue to deal with complaints post January, 2005 in the normal way and uphold them etc. and they will place on hold all sales that occurred prior to January, 2005 pending the decision of the Judicial Review. I don't believe though that the FSA or the FOS will grant them a waiver on this and they will continue to deal with complaints in the normal way. On the same hand, I don't think that the FSA will take any action against these firms for doing this either. (This is the cynic in me - I've done this for a long time and I've seen the Banks get away with murder - I don't think it'll change anytime soon).

From an observers point of view, this is going to be an interesting battle ahead in the High Court - but there's major pitfalls here for everybody, because this isn't going to take the 'months' that some of the commentators are stating - it's going to take years. It's really irrespective who wins in the High Court next year - because I'll give you a rock solid guarantee that the loser's going to appeal to the Supreme Court. There's too much at stake to lose on this, so I think it's going to be a minimum of 2 years before we get a binding decision.

The good news though appears that the FOS will continue to adjudicate on cases irrespective of any Judicial Review, so it's not on hold like the bank charges cases were - so everybody has got the chance for redress. The only way that the whole thing will go on hold is if a waiver is granted (I doubt this will happen as no-ones applied for one and I think someone would have moved on it by now), or the BBA get an injunction stopping the FOS adjudicating on affected cases (this might be the most likely scenario, particulary when we know who wins in the High Court).

The BIG question is - who's going to win? The worrying thing in all of it! I'm not a friend of the Banks and I'm certainly not on their Christmas Card lists this year - but if my above assumption is correct - then the BBA are going to win this one hands down and the FSA haven't got a hope in hell.

What won't happen is that any Court will stop PPI complaints, because we're too far down the road for that to happen, so this isn't going to pan out like the Bank Charges on a narrow point of law. Looking ahead, it's how the complaint is worded is going to paramount, because you won't then be able to bring ICOB arguments into a GISC regulated sale.

Hope this helps,

TBD.

debt55

TheBigDog wrote: »

Hi Debt55,

I run a claims company and it's all a little quiet out there, but the facts are becoming a bit clearer.

As far as the Lloyds Group is concerned, they're paying out on ALL agreed claims as promised, whether the offer is through the FOS or directly from a Lloyds Group Company - so that seems to have been cleared up. They're also acknowledging complaints at the moment as per normal, and they're also investigating complaints as well - however, their Legal Team have advised them not to uphold anything at present. So if you're waiting on an existing complaint which hasn't been agreed, then theres going to be a wait until the Legal Team give the go ahead to pay out.

What happens next?

Well, I think that it's down to each Legal Teams interpretation of the BBA's Judicial Challenge. My own personal opinion is that this will happen in the not too distant future:

It appears that the BBA are requesting that the FSA withdraws its policy statement on PS10/12, and they are contesting whether the Financial Regulator has the legal right to implement this policy statement on PPI complaints. In plain terms - the BBA has concerns that the FSA have requested lenders to review past sales against it's new set of rules and regulations. The BBA believes this to be unfair as there is no way any of it's members would have known about the regulation surrounding ICOB when they sold the policy, say, during GISC regulation (GISC rules are much less stringent than ICOB rules).

If the above is correct (and bear in mind that no-one has seen the Application and Grounds from the High Court yet) - then it appears that the complaints directly affected will be sales dated prior to when ICOB became law - ie - prior to 14th January, 2005. I'm saying this because prior to this date, GISC rules and regulations would have been in force, and the BBA have concerns that the FSA want firms to deal with ALL complaints under ICOB directives.

I think that when the dust settles, firms will continue to deal with complaints post January, 2005 in the normal way and uphold them etc. and they will place on hold all sales that occurred prior to January, 2005 pending the decision of the Judicial Review. I don't believe though that the FSA or the FOS will grant them a waiver on this and they will continue to deal with complaints in the normal way. On the same hand, I don't think that the FSA will take any action against these firms for doing this either. (This is the cynic in me - I've done this for a long time and I've seen the Banks get away with murder - I don't think it'll change anytime soon).

From an observers point of view, this is going to be an interesting battle ahead in the High Court - but there's major pitfalls here for everybody, because this isn't going to take the 'months' that some of the commentators are stating - it's going to take years. It's really irrespective who wins in the High Court next year - because I'll give you a rock solid guarantee that the loser's going to appeal to the Supreme Court. There's too much at stake to lose on this, so I think it's going to be a minimum of 2 years before we get a binding decision.

The good news though appears that the FOS will continue to adjudicate on cases irrespective of any Judicial Review, so it's not on hold like the bank charges cases were - so everybody has got the chance for redress. The only way that the whole thing will go on hold is if a waiver is granted (I doubt this will happen as no-ones applied for one and I think someone would have moved on it by now), or the BBA get an injunction stopping the FOS adjudicating on affected cases (this might be the most likely scenario, particulary when we know who wins in the High Court).

The BIG question is - who's going to win? The worrying thing in all of it! I'm not a friend of the Banks and I'm certainly not on their Christmas Card lists this year - but if my above assumption is correct - then the BBA are going to win this one hands down and the FSA haven't got a hope in hell.

What won't happen is that any Court will stop PPI complaints, because we're too far down the road for that to happen, so this isn't going to pan out like the Bank Charges on a narrow point of law. Looking ahead, it's how the complaint is worded is going to paramount, because you won't then be able to bring ICOB arguments into a GISC regulated sale.

Hope this helps,

TBD.

Ok thanks for this, great insight, i see the much derided Claims industry are the only ones to make salient inroads as to what is going on.

I started a thread about 2 months ago stating the banks were planning this, and we needed to make a move then before anything happened... zero response... "martin has not said anything" yada yada...

Well guess what?

Martin has still not said anything... but he still gets his appearance fee for GMTV or whatever its blooming called these days!

Right, back to this... what about single premiums sold before 2005?

Surely you could just hit the bank with a small claims case on it? they are banned by the comp comm and most banks have stopped selling them and you can cite nemo/thorisu as case law?

steveh31

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323847/Young-family-charged-1-000-fees-going-overdrawn--8p.html

Lloyds bank at it again. Not PPI but something that banks love to do and make there money out of, I know this from personal experience.

TheBigDog

debt55 wrote: »

Ok thanks for this, great insight, i see the much derided Claims industry are the only ones to make salient inroads as to what is going on.

I started a thread about 2 months ago stating the banks were planning this, and we needed to make a move then before anything happened... zero response... "martin has not said anything" yada yada...

Well guess what?

Martin has still not said anything... but he still gets his appearance fee for GMTV or whatever its blooming called these days!

Right, back to this... what about single premiums sold before 2005?

Surely you could just hit the bank with a small claims case on it? they are banned by the comp comm and most banks have stopped selling them and you can cite nemo/thorisu as case law?

Now were getting into the crux of what happens next!

Again, I have to state that it's my own personal opinion here and nothing that's definate, but yes - lump sum premiums prior to 2005 can still be complained about and litigated through the Courts, but the prep work will have to be a bit more thorough.

Lets take a sale based on GISC regulations. The first thing in a banks defence is that it wasn't a recommended sale and it was done on a non-advised basis and that it was down to the purchaser of the policy to ensure that the product was suitable. They can't get away with that on an ICOB sale because it would have had to have been done on a recommended basis.

Well, Mr. Bank, it ain't quite as simple as that! The over-riding objective of the GISC was that firms had to give people fair and acurate information that wasn't misleading and to ensure that the purchaser was in possesion of the facts to understand the true nature of the transaction they were entering into at the point of sale.

With this being the case, then the complaint would have to centre on the information being supplied rather than the circumstances of the purchaser at the point of sale. So it's not going to be enough to say 'I was self-employed', because the firm is going to turn around and say 'Tough - it was up to you to read the policy documentation to ensure it was suitable for your needs'. Whats got to happen is that the complaint centres around what was in the policy docs.

I'll give you an example:

This is the exact wording of a major banks policy document:

'We will not pay benefits in respect of unemployment, if:

A company which you, or your partner, wife, child, brother, sister was a director or had a controlling interest (other than by way of bona fide investment in a company quoted on a recognised stock exchamge) unless that Company ceases totally and permanently to trade as a direct result of an inability to pay it's debts as they were due, as a direct consequence of which, and immediately after which, you suffer redundancy;

CONFUSING??? You betcha! and it's totally against the rules of GISC - 'information in a clear and not misleading manner.'

Thats the clause covering self employment unemployment claims.

No disrespect to anyone, I get a lot of people who come to me who say - this policy was mis-sold to me because I was self employed, but they haven't got a clue why. The reason is that, in this particular case, someone who's self employed can't claim on the policy for unemployment unless they are in bankruptcy - because thats what the above clause refers to.

So, rather than say to the firm - I was self employed, it's not going to be enough - but going to the firm and stating that I was self employed when I took out the policy and the clause says 'blah, blah, blah', which I don't believe is sufficient information and it was not given to me in a clear and non misleading manner will win the case everytime.

To be fair, I find it a bit dangerous going to a lender with some of the templates I see on some sites because theres no guarantee that you'll get a result and the majority of people win at the FOS because they're taking a moral standpoint rather than a legal one.

I think it's whats written in the contract thats going to count in the future, and detailed, well researched arguments.

As you've mentioned the Thorius case, another one of my favourites whenever I see a MBNA policy (and I've never seen this argument used in MSE, CAG, Legal Beagles or any other website either) is this:

MBNA's policies in the early 2000's only paid 3% monthly benefit, but they did not give waiver of premium (which means that you have to carry on paying the premiums even if you're claiming) - so, by and large, the payment you would receive from the insurer would be less than your minimum payment, so the insurance product was flawed and it would not give adequate coverage to the claimant.

I think it's these types of arguments that will win in the future if the BBA win.

If I hear any interesting developments, I'll post back on here - I'm more than happy to help people. Not all claims firms are sharks.

I agree 100% with you though Debt on Martin's silence on this issue. I've got a lot of respect for him and he has championed people's causes for a long time, but there's not been a peep mentioned in either of his columns in the News of the World in the past fortnight, nor has he mentioned anything on Daybreak - Martin - give us your thoughts!

Regards,

TBD.

debt55

Excellent stuff, bigdog.

You have clearly won the argument on why not ALL claims comps are bad.

Not read anything like what you have posted above anywhere on this site.

People.. stop moaning at all claims comps.. remember they are professionals in this business and dont just pop up on forums to give their "ideaolgies"

as they have to make a living from this business..... and that means they cannot second guess... they ARE the experts in this game.

IMVHAHO.