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

TheBigDog

debt55 wrote: »

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.

That's very kind of you to say so Debt - I'm most honoured!:)

However, please note that regarding the Judicial Review there's my own personal thoughts and not fact - I could be wrong, but I'm confident I'm pretty close to the money.

Coming onto Claims Companies, I agree with some of the posters here that some of them are outright sharks and I've seen the way some of them operate and I agree that some of them are pretty awful. Every now and again, a lender mistakenly sends a complaint letter from another CMC to us and the contents of them are really, really, bad - for a consumer to pay them 25% of the redress for the contents of the letter is criminal. The cynic in me thinks that the Legal Teams in the lenders are deliberately slowing down the complaints process at the moment as they know that some CMC's will go bust if the cash flow slows down.

However, for everybody who's reading this and contemplating using a CMC - theres 2 bits of advice that we are duty bound to tell you under MoJ rules. Firstly, the CMC has to tell you, clearly, that you can do this yourself and that they don't have any special powers. As we're not solicitors, it is totally against MoJ conduct rules to state, or even imply, that only CMC's can do this or that we're legally qualified.

Secondly, we have to clearly state what percentage we charge - AND, clearly tell you what they charge the percentage on (as in money reclaimed/ money adjusted off the loan etc) - if they don't do this - it's a breach of rules.

Finally, coming away from CMC conduct rules - it's also illegal for a solicitor to accept claims from a third party Claims firm if the person was cold called. So if you do get a recorded message stating PPI claims - were you mis-sold etc etc - if that claim ends up with a solicitor - it's an unlawful claim. So be careful!

Best of Luck,

TBD.

amersall

madmac7hk wrote: »

Hi all, thought I would post an update on my situation with Lloyds.
A posted last week that I had been told that all claims were suspended and I proceeded to detail to the folk there that their letter stated 28 days from receiving the acceptance so from that point they were bound by their own process and repeated this in strong legal terms several times.

I then received a letter over the weekend outlining the refund amount £5.4k and as if by magic it all appeared in my account this morning! interest and all.....

So I guess keep pushing them, they are trying it on and are not prepared for the public to stand up and push back. I did and won, you can to.

Good luck all.

:T:T:T Well done :beer:

IanW1983

Hmm not had my refund yet and it's now just crept over the 28 days they said it would take, think I need to chase them today!

IanW1983

IanW1983 wrote: »

Hmm not had my refund yet and it's now just crept over the 28 days they said it would take, think I need to chase them today!

And I have literally just rang them, apparently they are working through the backlog of claim refunds from September at the moment and are apparently not allowed to give timescales of when it will be repaid.

sunandsailcat

Spoke with Customer Care at Lloyds today. I'm informed that although my accepance letter which was due to be sent out 8th October was not sent out, "a reprint request has been added to the reprint list" - the reprint list is being started on today, and am told that my Acceptance slip should arrive within the week....fingers crossed!

di3004

sunandsailcat wrote: »

Spoke with Customer Care at Lloyds today. I'm informed that although my accepance letter which was due to be sent out 8th October was not sent out, "a reprint request has been added to the reprint list" - the reprint list is being started on today, and am told that my Acceptance slip should arrive within the week....fingers crossed!

Fingers crossed

I remember back in about March time we had this same messing about, they were adamant they send the acceptances out, but then later apologised they made a mistake, did receive them finally lol.
Good luck.;)

CHF

Hi BigDog, seeing as you stuck your head above the parapet first, I too will admit to working in claims management. I agree with a lot of the points you made but would perhaps like to take up a few points for discussion as like you say, a lot of this is just speculation and best guessing from us guys.

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). Im not sure about this part here. Why wouldnt lenders be aware of GISC? I can understand some of the agents such as car or double galzing salesmen not signing up but lenders would have been aware, if not signatories? (p.24 PS10/12)

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. agreed

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). agreed

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. agreed

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. agreed

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.

marshallka

TheBigDog wrote: »

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.

Martin DID mention on Daybreak and Guy was the first to do a news story when Lloyds were holding back complaints I think.

I think everyone is waiting for the 21 days to be up whereby the FSA are "supposed" to fire back.... not happening though yet but that is not to say it won't.

marshallka

A bit more news here

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE69Q12N20101027

UK banks face 5 bln stg protection insurance hit

ankerbankers

debt55 wrote: »

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

Nothing on hold anymore at Lloyds, correct, however no timescales given!! mmmmmmmmmmmm!!!::mad::mad: