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

Mr_CMC

Alpine_Star wrote: »

No, any appeal to either the application for Judicial Review or the substantive application (the actual Judicial Review) gets heard in the Court of Appeal. But any subsequent appeal to a CoA judgment could be taken to the Supreme Court, subject to the granting of leave to appeal.

Yes, as this is a civil case not criminal, it does not jump to the Supreme.

Which could mean an extra 6-12 months of delays.

High Court > Court of Appeal > Supreme Court.

Let's hope you are correct Alpine, and they come to a centre ground, however, considering the spurious nature of this JR, and subsequent FSA statements concerning mere "guidelines" suggested for reform, it would appear unlikely.

The banks are using the legal system, again, to put a knot in the pipeline.

I noticed news this week of this fund the high st banks have agreed to wade into, in order some "community bank" is set up.

Nice trade off?

Alpine_Star

I'd be surprised if the FSA lost on most of the issues and even if they lost on the requirement to review past sales that were not complained of, they could still apply to enforce it through s404 of the Enterprise Act - which they decided not to rely on in the policy statement. Judicial Review procedure provides that even if a decision by a public authority is quashed, the authority can revisit it and reach the same decision ''by other means''.

It's clear that even in consideration of the policy statement the FSA were fully aware of a potential legal challenge to it so I'm sure their Counsel would have done their legal homework:

''The Board considered each of the recommendations in turn, establishing the reasoning for each of the proposals and considering the issues that had been raised. After due and careful consideration the Board approved each of the Executive’s recommendations, and agreed it should make the proposed instrument, and issue the associated materials, believing that this was the appropriate way to deal with the concerns identified in a proportionate way, notwithstanding the possibility of legal challenge.'' http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/board-minutes/july_22.pdf

Mr_CMC

Alpine_Star wrote: »

I'd be surprised if the FSA lost on most of the issues and even if they lost on the requirement to review past sales that were not complained of, they could still apply to enforce it through s404 of the Enterprise Act - which they decided not to rely on in the policy statement. Judicial Review procedure provides that even if a decision by a public authority is quashed, the authority can revisit it and reach the same decision ''by other means''.

It's clear that even in consideration of the policy statement the FSA were fully aware of a potential legal challenge to it so I'm sure their Counsel would have done their legal homework:

''The Board considered each of the recommendations in turn, establishing the reasoning for each of the proposals and considering the issues that had been raised. After due and careful consideration the Board approved each of the Executive’s recommendations, and agreed it should make the proposed instrument, and issue the associated materials, believing that this was the appropriate way to deal with the concerns identified in a proportionate way, notwithstanding the possibility of legal [/url]

A very insightful post, Alpine.

Thanks.

Mr_CMC

According to the FSA high street banks could be hit with huge fines for non-compliance. An FSA source said the following to the Mail:

“Lenders will not be able to put postbags of complaints to one side. We will apply enforcement action if firms fail to comply.
There may be a minority of cases where a complaint has issues which are tied up in the judicial review. But in most cases firms can and should be abiding by the new guidelines.”

Cardinals

Pending the JR my view is that complaints should be framed around a breach of a Rule and ignore Principles and Guidance (TCF etc).

Whilst this ignores the subject of redress in the case of single premium (another element of the JR) it would not prevent a bank upholding a complaint pending clarification of calculations post JR.

I'd state clearly and in a bold heading that because the complaint is a rule breach it cannot be subject to a 'holding letter'

If there are no rule breaches associated with the complaint I'd chuck it in but expect it to be held (for those Lenders who are a part of the JR).

Just my thoughts

di3004

Some news came in from MSE guy just now here:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2010/12/two-year-wait-for-ombudsman-ppi-reclaim-decision?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_campaign=box

TheBigDog

Di put this up on Legal Beagles earlier (thanks Di!) - the last section really caught my eye.

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2035252

This what the BBA source had to say:

“It remains a matter for individual BBA members to determine the details of how to handle complaints by their customers. But customers should be assured that all complaints will be reviewed – even those delayed by this judicial review process.”

Are the BBA beginning to distance themselves from their members here?

That statement could be translated into a lot of different ways - do they really mean:

"We asked for the JR, however, how our members interpret that and how they want to handle complaints is up to them - it's nothing to do with us. If it's found that our members are putting everything on hold due to the JR, and the FSA start knocking on their door with massive fines for not dealing with complaints properly, we don't want to know - it's not our problem".

Interesting.

TBD.

di3004

Not a problem.;)

notveryhapi

I have been told by Lloyds helpline today that they are to review cases in the backlog shortly. This is not to send hold letters but to uphold or decline.

Regards

amersall

notveryhapi wrote: »

I have been told by Lloyds helpline today that they are to review cases in the backlog shortly. This is not to send hold letters but to uphold or decline.

Regards

That is good news for lloyds ppi claims. Thank you.