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

TheBigDog

Evening All!

I've had a couple of days of listening to wild rumours from a wide variety of sources! I'm stilltrying to verify them though which is proving a bit tricky. I've got some info which has come from a very good source, and some info which has come from not so good sources.

What is coming apparent now though is that lenders seem to be doing something with the complaints, so I think we're moving in the right way, albeit slowly.

We seem to have gone from the really dark days of the 11th and 12th of October, where all lenders turned around and said that we ain't honouring anything - including offers already made, to lenders slowly acknowledging again - and now they're working the cases.

I've seen quite a few hold letters and not so many uphold letters since the 8th of October, however, I do now believe that all the banks are working cases and they are also upholding some of them as well. What isn't yet apparent is what cases they're looking at and which they arent and what is, and isn't, affected by the JR. I've seen letters from lenders which have put post 2005 cases on hold, so I don't think that it's wise to assume at the moment that ALL post 2005 aren't affected.

I think things will now become clearer in the next few days - and I'm hoping that it'll start to move again.

Kind Regards,

TBD.

TheBigDog

marshallka wrote: »

I have a feeling that Big dog is too.... just an instinct though?

Sorry Marshallka!

I'm a CMC Chap!

TBD.

debt55

banks who put claims on hold, that are totally unaffected by the JR... are they not on a sticky wicket legally with CMCs?

restriction of trade?

CHF

petecorfu wrote: »

yes loans and credit cards! all of it is being held! the letters keep on a comin!

Hi Pete

This really doesnt tally with what Im seeing - since 12 Oct, Ive submitted approx 100 claims and have had only 5 'Hold' responses, 4 from HFC and 1 from First Direct, which are all part of HSBC.

Ive had the usual acknowledgements from Barclays, RBS, Loyds etc etc.

Ive been expecting much more but there just not coming!

debt55

TheBigDog wrote: »

Sorry Marshallka!

I'm a CMC Chap!

TBD.

i can't believe she actually believed a lady would tag herself a "Dog" ?

TheBigDog

CHF wrote: »

Hi Pete

This really doesnt tally with what Im seeing - since 12 Oct, Ive submitted approx 100 claims and have had only 5 'Hold' responses, 4 from HFC and 1 from First Direct, which are all part of HSBC.

Ive had the usual acknowledgements from Barclays, RBS, Loyds etc etc.

Ive been expecting much more but there just not coming!

I've had hold letters from MBNA (post 2005), RBS, Barclays (post 2005) and from HSBC.

I was particulary annoyed at the Barclays one, because it was taken in branch in 2007 - pre existing conditions and self employed - I've also got the SDN, which doesn't mention any of this, so I think I'm on solid ground. My initial thought was to speak to the client and stick a N1 through their door, but I'm holding on to it for the time being and let the FSA know they've held it. On top of everything else that I've posted about a CMC litigating cases, I'm very, very wary of them defending on the basis of a JR - I don't think that a Deputy District Judge would want to make a call knowing there's action in the High Court relating to this and I could easily see him or her adjourning until afterwards.

I'd love a time machine to go forward a fortnight, because I think the pictures going to be a bit clearer by then.

TBD.

debt55

TheBigDog wrote: »

I've had hold letters from MBNA (post 2005), RBS, Barclays (post 2005) and from HSBC.

I was particulary annoyed at the Barclays one, because it was taken in branch in 2007 - pre existing conditions and self employed - I've also got the SDN, which doesn't mention any of this, so I think I'm on solid ground. My initial thought was to speak to the client and stick a N1 through their door, but I'm holding on to it for the time being and let the FSA know they've held it. On top of everything else that I've posted about a CMC litigating cases, I'm very, very wary of them defending on the basis of a JR - I don't think that a Deputy District Judge would want to make a call knowing there's action in the High Court relating to this and I could easily see him or her adjourning until afterwards.

I'd love a time machine to go forward a fortnight, because I think the pictures going to be a bit clearer by then.

TBD.

I have taken the time to speak to quite a few big fish in the world of PPI litigation... i pretended to be you, lol, or any other CMC owner, gave them feel that i was processing thousands of ppi cases every month and what could we do now with the JR pending...

they are VERY bullish, you see, no DJ could hold/adjourn any cases as the JR is all based on regualtory issues NOT the law of the land!

there is no point of law that is actually being argued by the BBA

and with the backing of the FSA/FOS.. and lol the BBA.. who clearly state not to hold any unrelated cases...

they do not have a leg to stand on.

the sol i spoke to is issuing only 5% of claims, as the rest are being settled, post JR!!!!

debt55

i have 7 more complaints i am processing for friends, so i need to know what i can do to help them... if it means we pay the small claims fee to issue a claim, we will do.

fished plenty of legal stuff from the sols today.

free legal advice is fabulous

Alpine_Star

debt55 wrote: »

no DJ could hold/adjourn any cases as the JR is all based on regualtory issues NOT the law of the land!

there is no point of law that is actually being argued by the BBA

The BBA action is all about points of law ie whether the FSA policy statement is legally binding.

The role of courts is to give effect to the law. And the purpose of a Judicial review is to decide the legality or otherwise of a public body‟s actions. If no points of law are being argued a court would not be involved.

debt55

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The BBA action is all about points of law ie whether the FSA policy statement is legally binding.

The role of courts is to give effect to the law. And the purpose of a Judicial review is to decide the legality or otherwise of a public body‟s actions. If no points of law are being argued a court would not be involved.

yes that makes sense.

i think i misinterpreted what i was told.

but nonetheless, the point remains solid... there are no stays, and even more so... no stay has been applied for.

so the courts are free to be used if you wish to try and expediate claims.

although the FOS are putting more staff to work, so that could reduce the currnet 12-18 month waiting times.