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

ankerbankers

CHF wrote: »

Can anyone further clarify the bit in bold - i thought we had established this was one of the main issus? - Go on ankers if your re reading this, give us your opinion please

CHF - To clarify, yes the retrospective FSA policy statement is one of the issues being contested but another big issue is they are also contesting guidance published by the FOS and that will be a can of worms as well!

Why are alpine and corfu being so antagonistic on here not to mention paranoid??

I am on the same side so wind your necks in!:eek:

steveh31

FSA Clarifies PPI Insurance Rules After Banking Challenge

By Ben Moshinsky - Nov 24, 2010 2:02 PM GMT
Services Authority clarified rules on how to treat consumer complaints about payment protection insurance in response to a judicial review sought by the British Bankers’ Association.
The regulator’s initial guidelines “may have been misinterpreted,” the FSA said in a statement on its website today. The BBA sought a judicial review in October, complaining that there was “insufficient legal clarity,” about the rules.
The guidelines were aimed at helping “firms to comply with their obligations when selling PPI and to give fair consideration to consumer complaints about PPI sales,” the FSA said, rather than providing a list of bank failings.
Lloyds Banking Group Plc and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc are among U.K. banks that may have to pay as much as 5.1 billion pounds ($8 billion) in compensation and costs for mis- selling PPI, Morgan Stanley analysts said in a report published last month. U.K. antitrust regulators have also cracked down on the product, banning some PPI sales.
Brian Capon, a spokesman for the BBA, declined to immediately comment.
PPI is used to cover payments on credit cards and mortgages in case of sickness or unemployment. Customers who bought PPI usually weren’t aware that they could have purchased insurance from other companies, rarely compared prices and contract terms, or switched providers, the U.K.’s Competition Commission has said.

robbedofmymoney

FSA statement regarding Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]_____________________________________________ [/FONT]

Introduction

1. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
2. 1.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]As will be well known among firms, in August 2010 we published new Handbook provisions concerning the fair handling of PPI sales complaints[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]1[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]. The new Handbook provisions come into force on 1 December 2010. We also published a revised version of an open letter to industry which set out common point of sale failings for PPI sales and asked firms to have regard to these failings when considering complaints about past PPI sales[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]2[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]2. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]As a result of the British Bankers’ Association’s well publicised legal challenge to our PPI provisions, we have become aware that the Open Letter may have been misinterpreted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]3[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]. We are therefore issuing this statement. [/FONT]


The status and implications of the open letter

1. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
2. 3.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Our new Handbook provisions include guidance for firms on how to assess complaints in order to establish whether the firm’s conduct of the sale failed to comply with the FSA’s rules, or was otherwise in breach of the firm’s duty of care or any other requirement of the general law (taking into account relevant materials published by the FSA, other relevant regulators, the Financial Ombudsman Service and former schemes: see DISP App 3.1.2G(1)). [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]1 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Amendments to the Dispute Resolution: Complaints sourcebook ("DISP") introduced by Dispute Resolution: Complaints (Payment Protection Insurance) Instrument 2010, which was discussed and set out in Policy Statement 10/12 (August 2010): The assessment and redress of Payment Protection Insurance Complaints. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The letter is addressed to industry representatives and is headed "Common point of sale failings for PPI sales". The letter, together with its accompanying appendix which lists the common failings, are referred to as "the Open Letter" and are included at Appendix 4 of the Policy Statement 10/12. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]3 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]On 8 October 2010, the British Bankers Association commenced proceedings for judicial review of the FSA’s Policy Statement 10/12 dated August 2010 on the assessment and redress of PPI complaints. The FSA is defending those proceedings. [/FONT]

[/FONT]1

1. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
2. 4.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The relevant materials published by the FSA, to which DISP App 3.1.2G(1) refers, include the Open Letter. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]5. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]As we explained in the Open Letter, the appendix contains a non-exhaustive list of common failings at the point of sale that have resulted in poor outcomes for consumers, and that have come to our attention principally through thematic work, mystery shopping, and enforcement actions ("the Common Failings"). [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]6. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]We understand that the BBA interprets the Open Letter as meaning that the FSA considers that a sale in which any one or more of the Common Failings occurred would necessarily involve a breach of the FSA’s Principles for Businesses or other rules or the general law, without there being any further need to consider all of the relevant circumstances of the particular sale in which the Common Failing or Failings featured. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]7. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]That is not the FSA’s position. Rather, it has been the FSA’s experience, based upon the thematic and enforcement work mentioned above, that sales in which one or more of the Common Failings occurred usually involved, on a proper consideration of all the circumstances of the sale, a breach of at least one of the FSA’s Principles for Businesses, or other FSA rules, or the general law. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]8. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]As was made clear within DISP App 3.2.1G, in order to assess whether or not it has failed to comply with the FSA’s Principles for Businesses or other rules (or has otherwise acted in breach of a duty of care owed to the customer or any other requirement of the general law) a firm: [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]"[…] should consider, in the light of all the information provided by the complainant and otherwise already held by or available to the firm, whether there was a breach or failing by the firm"[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]So the Common Failings are not a substitute for a full assessment of the sale in light of all the available information. [/FONT]

2

1. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
2. 9.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The publication of the list of Common Failings is intended to help firms to comply with their obligations when selling PPI and to give fair consideration to consumer complaints about PPI sales in accordance with DISP 1.4.1R. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]24 November 2010 [/FONT]

the statement is fairly self explanitory, effectively the FSA have stated that the BBA and the Banks have completely mis-interpreted the guidence.

The ball in now in the court of the BBA who have not yet responded to this statement.

tiggrae

robbedofmymoney wrote: »

FSA statement regarding Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]_____________________________________________ [/FONT]

Introduction

1. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
2. 1.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]As will be well known among firms, in August 2010 we published new Handbook provisions concerning the fair handling of PPI sales complaints[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]1[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]. The new Handbook provisions come into force on 1 December 2010. We also published a revised version of an open letter to industry which set out common point of sale failings for PPI sales and asked firms to have regard to these failings when considering complaints about past PPI sales[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]2[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]2. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]As a result of the British Bankers’ Association’s well publicised legal challenge to our PPI provisions, we have become aware that the Open Letter may have been misinterpreted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]3[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]. We are therefore issuing this statement. [/FONT]






The status and implications of the open letter

1. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
2. 3.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Our new Handbook provisions include guidance for firms on how to assess complaints in order to establish whether the firm’s conduct of the sale failed to comply with the FSA’s rules, or was otherwise in breach of the firm’s duty of care or any other requirement of the general law (taking into account relevant materials published by the FSA, other relevant regulators, the Financial Ombudsman Service and former schemes: see DISP App 3.1.2G(1)). [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]1 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Amendments to the Dispute Resolution: Complaints sourcebook ("DISP") introduced by Dispute Resolution: Complaints (Payment Protection Insurance) Instrument 2010, which was discussed and set out in Policy Statement 10/12 (August 2010): The assessment and redress of Payment Protection Insurance Complaints. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The letter is addressed to industry representatives and is headed "Common point of sale failings for PPI sales". The letter, together with its accompanying appendix which lists the common failings, are referred to as "the Open Letter" and are included at Appendix 4 of the Policy Statement 10/12. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]3 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]On 8 October 2010, the British Bankers Association commenced proceedings for judicial review of the FSA’s Policy Statement 10/12 dated August 2010 on the assessment and redress of PPI complaints. The FSA is defending those proceedings. [/FONT]





[/FONT]1

1. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
2. 4.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The relevant materials published by the FSA, to which DISP App 3.1.2G(1) refers, include the Open Letter. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]5. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]As we explained in the Open Letter, the appendix contains a non-exhaustive list of common failings at the point of sale that have resulted in poor outcomes for consumers, and that have come to our attention principally through thematic work, mystery shopping, and enforcement actions ("the Common Failings"). [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]6. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]We understand that the BBA interprets the Open Letter as meaning that the FSA considers that a sale in which any one or more of the Common Failings occurred would necessarily involve a breach of the FSA’s Principles for Businesses or other rules or the general law, without there being any further need to consider all of the relevant circumstances of the particular sale in which the Common Failing or Failings featured. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]7. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]That is not the FSA’s position. Rather, it has been the FSA’s experience, based upon the thematic and enforcement work mentioned above, that sales in which one or more of the Common Failings occurred usually involved, on a proper consideration of all the circumstances of the sale, a breach of at least one of the FSA’s Principles for Businesses, or other FSA rules, or the general law. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]8. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]As was made clear within DISP App 3.2.1G, in order to assess whether or not it has failed to comply with the FSA’s Principles for Businesses or other rules (or has otherwise acted in breach of a duty of care owed to the customer or any other requirement of the general law) a firm: [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]"[…] should consider, in the light of all the information provided by the complainant and otherwise already held by or available to the firm, whether there was a breach or failing by the firm"[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]So the Common Failings are not a substitute for a full assessment of the sale in light of all the available information. [/FONT]





2

1. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
2. 9.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The publication of the list of Common Failings is intended to help firms to comply with their obligations when selling PPI and to give fair consideration to consumer complaints about PPI sales in accordance with DISP 1.4.1R. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]24 November 2010 [/FONT]

the statement is fairly self explanitory, effectively the FSA have stated that the BBA and the Banks have completely mis-interpreted the guidence.

The ball in now in the court of the BBA who have not yet responded to this statement.

this is all getting very interesting as the first line of the statement says 'Our new Handbook provisions include guidance for firms on how to assess complaints in order to establish whether the firm’s conduct of the sale failed to comply with the FSA’s rules,

Under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 54) for a Judical Review to go ahead (54.1) it has to be one of the following -

54.1
(1) This Section of this Part contains rules about judicial review.

(2) In this Section –
(a) a ‘claim for judicial review’ means a claim to review the lawfulness of –
(i) an enactment; or

(ii) a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function.

Therefore, if PS 10/12 is only guidance as stated by the FSA and not an enactment or decision etc. then theoretically the BBA have no grounds for a Judicial Review.


also, Section 54.2 states
When this Section must be used
54.2

The judicial review procedure must be used in a claim for judicial review where the claimant is seeking –
(a) a mandatory order;

(b) a prohibiting order;

(c) a quashing order; or

(d) an injunction under section 30 of the Supreme Court Act 19811 (restraining a person from acting in any office in which he is not entitled to act).

Alpine_Star

The mandatory order (or in this case, a quashing order) is what the BBA is seeking to obtain and not what they're challenging. The BBA application is seeking to quash the policy statement and it's requirements on the industry. Any decision by a public authority has the potential to be challenged by way of Judicial Review.

Notwithstanding if the BBA hadn't theoretical grounds for a Judicial Review then the judge wouldn't have already decided that there are:

''This case is plainly suitable for expedition given the subject matter and the potential ramifications for the industry and such expedition is as necessary in respect of the claim against FOS as the claim against FSA.''

tiggrae

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The mandatory order (or in this case, a quashing order) is what the BBA is seeking to obtain and not what they're challenging. The BBA application is seeking to quash the policy statement and it's requirements on the industry. Any decision by a public authority has the potential to be challenged by way of Judicial Review.

Notwithstanding if the BBA hadn't theoretical grounds for a Judicial Review then the judge wouldn't have already decided that there are:

''This case is plainly suitable for expedition given the subject matter and the potential ramifications for the industry and such expedition is as necessary in respect of the claim against FOS as the claim against FSA.''

I don't know why I bother !

TheBigDog

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The mandatory order (or in this case, a quashing order) is what the BBA is seeking to obtain and not what they're challenging. The BBA application is seeking to quash the policy statement and it's requirements on the industry. Any decision by a public authority has the potential to be challenged by way of Judicial Review.

Notwithstanding if the BBA hadn't theoretical grounds for a Judicial Review then the judge wouldn't have already decided that there are:

''This case is plainly suitable for expedition given the subject matter and the potential ramifications for the industry and such expedition is as necessary in respect of the claim against FOS as the claim against FSA.''

Just out of curiousity Alpine - do you work for a bank?

petecorfu

im buzzing this morning! Welcome finance ppi refund of £4115 and northern rock mppi of £2787 in my first to letters opened this morning!!
I have 2 very happy couples who both said " xmas is no longer canceled" i a matter of point i asked one of them " do you resent paying us the 25% out of your re-dress?" NO was the reply!, we would not have had the time or the energy to pursue it! your well worth your fee! thankyou"

Nuff said!

audley16

petecorfu wrote: »

im buzzing this morning! Welcome finance ppi refund of £4115 and northern rock mppi of £2787 in my first to letters opened this morning!!
I have 2 very happy couples who both said " xmas is no longer canceled" i a matter of point i asked one of them " do you resent paying us the 25% out of your re-dress?" NO was the reply!, we would not have had the time or the energy to pursue it! your well worth your fee! thankyou"

Nuff said!

Peter

Well done! Out of interest do you have any professional qualifications in financial services?

Alpine_Star

TheBigDog wrote: »

Just out of curiousity Alpine - do you work for a bank?

I don't work for anyone - least of all a bank.