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

marshallka

debt55 wrote: »

hey, i reckon you are the exact, 100% exact carbon copy of one of those folks off legalbegles aswell

Oh no, someone impersonating me:eek:. What user name is it??

di3004

lmao :rotfl::D wonder if I'm there too then pmsl x

marshallka

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/insurance/banks-put-ppi-claims-on-ice-2121121.html

Banks put PPI claims on ice

Nothing new but still in the news

steveh31

http://business.scotsman.com/business/Lloyds-39facing-1bn-bill-for.6606152.jp

mrs-stressed

marshallka wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/insurance/banks-put-ppi-claims-on-ice-2121121.html

Banks put PPI claims on ice

Nothing new but still in the news

I agree with you. Nothing I repeat nothing that these banks do ever surprises me now. The biggest surprise will be when they pay me in full for taking money and then not honouring and paying up when I needed/claimed it. I fear I shall be whistling for that one for a long long time..

mrs-stressed

steveh31 wrote: »

http://business.scotsman.com/business/Lloyds-39facing-1bn-bill-for.6606152.jp

This article is very very interesting. Thanks for that steve.

mrs-stressed

debt55 wrote: »

this is crazy haha

am i that much like them?

Fraid so!!! Enjoy the notoriety though. As long as it gets people onto both websites then you are worth your weight in gold my friend!!

Alpine_Star

TheBigDog wrote: »

I'm not trying to critical of Martin, however, I dont believe that he has made as much noise as he could have done here. I've got a lot of time for him (and his 2 for 1 vouchers come in handy for days out!), but for someone who has been championing the ppi debate, I think he could raise a lot more awareness than he has done.

You volunteering then?

TheBigDog

Alpine_Star wrote: »

You volunteering then?

You bet your bottom dollar I am!

TheBigDog

Well,

I've read it 4 times between Friday and this evening, and I've got to admit - I'm disappointed. When I first heard the argument the banks were putting up I thought that there was no chance that the FSA would win on this one and the BBA had then by the buster browns.

I was expecting some serious firworks, but instead we got a damp squib - and the banks, as per normal have screwed it up by being too greedy. If the banks have dropped a clanger selling PPI in the first place, then they've dropped an even bigger one by trying to defend their actions - there's so many holes in their arguments, I bet Delme Griffiths is licking his lips at this one. For anyone whos unsure, here's our boy:

http://www.russell-cooke.co.uk/employees-detail.cfm?id=679&sub=

Pretty experienced, experience in Judicial Reviews, and more importantly, he's acting on behalf of the FOS.

Now, I'm not going to write pages and pages of why the BBA's case is totally flawed, but I'll pick a few bits out which I found interesting:

I've noticed that they're asking for an urgent consideration on this, and they're going to be ready for trial on the first available days after the 15th of December - so hopefully this will get heard asap, so it shouldn't drag out for months and months waiting for a trial date - however, the loser will appeal to the Supreme Court.

OK - what they want. The BBA have asked for the following:

That Policy Statement 10/12 is withdrawn and quashed; That the FOS's PPI guidance rules are quashed and any other relief the Court sees fit.

No suprises with the Policy Statement, but they've screwed up royal with asking for the FOS guidelines to quashed.

For those who are reading this and are totally lost with the law and regulations that are at stake here - I'll try and explain it in plain language. The FSA have 2 sets of rules to consider when looking at PPI sales. The first set of rules that apply are their 'Principal Rules', which are set out to ensure fair play is given to everybody and they are the cornerstone of how firms should deal with their clients. In these Principal Rules are rules such as 'Treating Customers Fairly' and 'Communicating With Clients' to name but two of them. In addition, there are also insurance regulatory rules as well - such as ICOB, or the updated version, ICOBS, which also should be taken into account. What the BBA are up to here is that they're stating that the Principle Rules shouldn't be taken into account by and large by the FSA or the FOS, and that only the relevant insurance rules should be taken into account at the time of sale - ie - ABI, GISC, ICOB or ICOBS. It basically means that the FOS shouldn't deal with complaints using Principle Rules because that would let the banks off the hook with some of the arguments that are put before the FOS.

I'm not going to write each of the paragraphs of their claim on here because it would take too long, but the following points are in specific reference to the paragraph numbers of their pleadings:

Para. 4 - 'the figures could substantially increase' - ok - they've admitted to £4.4Billion already, with a whole lot more if pre 2005 sales are taken into account - I wonder how much liability they've got in total? Based on the figures we know already - the total bill here could be north of £10Billion in total.

Para. 14 - Once you've stopped laughing! Yep, the BBA only think that there's problems in the PPI market because the FSA and the FOS perceive that there is. So we may as well ignore God knows how many investigations there's been into the PPI market and the findings of the Competion Commission and all the fines that have been handed out - the BBA think that there aren't any problems with PPI at all, it's just the FSA.

15(c) - It's in black and white - the only cases that are directly affected are prior to ICOB rules coming into force.

37 (c) (i) - I've noticed how they've casually failed to mention all the interest you've got pay on the premium as well here! (this comes apparent why later on). And also the BBA's assertion that the industry, in agreementwith the FSA, ceased to offer lump sum PPI - Really? thats news to me and it's going to be news to the Competition Commission as well. Hello??? BBA???? Are Barclays not one of your members, and did they not appeal the Competition Commission's decision to the Competition Appeal Tribunal and lost????? Thats hardly industry agreement is it?

40 (a) - Thats totally untrue. Because of their non pro rata rebate, the loan payment doesn't just drop to the contractual loan payment because the unfair rebate will automatically mean it's higher.

40 (b) (i), (ii) & (iii) - Total horses**t, and you know it as well BBA. Rule of 78 is designed to ensure you keep your profit margin if people pay off loans early, and your policies are repaid on a pro rata basis, but pro rata on risk and not time? Pull the other one BBA - it's got bells on! LOL! (this also gets a mention in Para. 55(b))

43. GISC was voluntary - but what they didn't say is that no insurer would take your business if you weren't a member. It might be voluntary, but you couldn't do anything without being a member - it worked a bit like the Mortgage Code Compliance Board - you couldn't write a mortgage if you weren't a member.

Para. 73 - People only started complaining in ernest after the CAB's supercomplaint and the Competition Commission's investigation, and with it, the FOS uphold rates went up. Are the BBA really trying to state that this is the CAB and CC's fault for making people aware that those nasty banks had put a crap product out there and how dare they complain????

74 (b) - What - and lenders dont use template letters? lol! I see at least a letter every week which is denying liability from banks where they've forgotten to change the surname of the complainant from the last template they sent out.

86. CMC's??? were to blame as well for inducing complainants to make a complaint? lol!

104 - I notice they didn't empashise the first bit, where it states 'breach of duty of care or any other requirement of General Law.' I wonder if the BBA have heard of the Misrepresentation Act?????

128(c) - So, you don't think that you have a legal liability to customers who have been mis-sold the policy? How about the remedies in Common Law?

165 - The case law that they've used is v. interesting. I think they've shot themselves in the foot with this bit. In the judgment of Burnton LJ, he said that 'provided that the adviser has complied with the current law, regulations, regulators rules etc, etc and good industry practice, then the adviser can be assurred that the will not be liable to the client. This is a p*ss poor bit of case law, because there is no way they can prove that they complied with the Judges thoughts on this - how can it be good practice selling a ppi policy to someone who can never claim because of the exclusions on it?

ANNEX

5 I was rolling on the floor laughing when I read this. A Judge will destroy them on this. They're basically saying - so what - we sold the punter a duff product, but why should we have to give him his money back?

15 (n) - Total crap - a recommendation has to be that the product is suitable to the client, not the number of them they have. They're stating here that because they only sell one lump sum product, it has to be suitable because they haven't got any other ones to offer. total bulls**t. It's a bit like taking your car to a garage for a puncture and they state, well because we haven't got a tyre, the only product we've got in stock is an exhaust, so we'll sell you that because it's the only thing we've got and you obviously need to buy something for your car.

15 (o) - the last 2 lines! So BBA, it's alright then to sell someone a lump sum policy and they lose a small fortune when they cancel it or pay it off early through consolidation?

19(p) - So it looks as though its ok to rip people off with life cover then and charge thousands for it when you can get it elsewhere for pennies?

19 (s) - This, in my opinion, is worst bit of it in the whole of their claim, and I think it's disgraceful. The BBA, dont think that the interest that you pay on the lump sum premium is actually the cost of the policy - only the premium itself. The BBA say the interest is different as it allows the customer to facilitate the cost of the policy over a period of time. So, the interest is the cost of providing you the credit for the insurance loan and is not a direct cost of the insurance cover - I'm ROFFL! F**K OFF BBA - are you in cloud cuckoo land or what??????? I can't wait for the Judge to pick up on this in Court!

Finally, when I first read the Claim, one persons words were in my mind, and it involves our old friends Amanda and Basil Rankine (remember them - they were the ones that got hit with a £100k legal bill after losing their unenforceable credit agreement claims in the High Court). The persons words are HHJ Simon Brown, and I'll quote this from his Judgment:

(9) It is worth remembering that the context and and purpose of the CCA: the Consumer Credit Act was introduced in protecting the individual unsophisticated in financial affairs in contracts with unscrupulous and sophisticated financial institutions. It was not designed to help individuals in the financial services business make money out of financial institutions through exploiting its undoubted technicalities.

What odds is anyone giving me that we don't hear a Judge saying the same thing next year regarding the BBA? - a la:

'It is worth remembering that the context and and purpose of ICOB and FSA Principle Rules were introduced in protecting the individual unsophisticated in financial affairs in contracts with unscrupulous and sophisticated financial institutions. It was not designed to help financial institutions avoid their liabilities through exploiting its undoubted technicalities.'

My money's firmly behind the FSA and FOS. I don't think that the BBA have a prayer on this.

I can't wait to get to the office tomorrow morning - the Banks better get ready for World War 3.

Regards,

TBD.