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

Alpine_Star

dunstonh wrote: »

Theoretically, if the judicial review outcome is such that your complaint is one that should be rejected then you could find the bank withdraw their offer and you end up with nothing.

The outcome of the Judicial Review cannot and will not have any bearing on complaints that the FOS has already upheld. Nowhere in the JR claim does the BBA seek to overturn any individual ruling that the FOS has made.

It is also irrelevant that Nat West may ''withdraw their offer'' as the level of redress lays entirely with the FOS.

dunstonh

The outcome of the Judicial Review cannot and will not have any bearing on complaints that the FOS has already upheld.

It will if the bank are appealing it. It hasnt got to the final decision yet in this case.

Alpine_Star

dunstonh wrote: »

It will if the bank are appealing it.

No it won't.

magpiecottage

Strictly speaking, a firm does not have to "agree" with an Ombudsman's decision but if the complainant accepts it within the time limit then it must comply with it.

It then becomes a debt which the complainant can enforce against the firm in court without the need to demonstrate the merits of the original complaint.

However, there ae circumstances in which a firm can seek a judicial review of a complaint. If the banks won the JR before redress was paid, a firm might conclude that if it had the individual case subjected JR, the court would follow the precedent and attempt to block payment.

So, on the face of it Alpine Star is right but if you follow though the ramifications, so is DunstonH.

There is also the risk that the banks win the JR before an Ombudsman issues a decision. If so, then it is likely that the Ombudsman would reject the complaint anyway.

So holding out may produce more but there is no guarantee that you will not lose what has already been offered.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

However, there ae circumstances in which a firm can seek a judicial review of a complaint. If the banks won the JR before redress was paid, a firm might conclude that if it had the individual case subjected JR, the court would follow the precedent and attempt to block payment.

A Bank is hardly likely to launch an expensive Judicial Review action for an individual claim worth a few grand.

dunstonh

Alpine_Star wrote: »

A Bank is hardly likely to launch an expensive Judicial Review action for an individual claim worth a few grand.

No they are not. However, they are when there are hundreds of thousands of cases, many of which without any basis of complaint but trying it on.

If they can get the JR completed and in their favour before the FOS make a decision then they can save a fortune.

There is also the risk that the banks win the JR before an Ombudsman issues a decision. If so, then it is likely that the Ombudsman would reject the complaint anyway.

That was the point I was aiming at. Until the FOS have made a decision then you are not guaranteed any redress. However, my understanding is that if a case is referred to an ombudsman after an adjudicator decision and the result of the JR comes in before the ombudsman makes a decision then the ombudsman will take the outcome of the JR into account.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

There is also the risk that the banks win the JR before an Ombudsman issues a decision. If so, then it is likely that the Ombudsman would reject the complaint anyway.

With respect this is just nonsense.

If the banks win the JR all that happens is that the 'new' rules don't come into play (at least until the FSA re-formulate them) leaving the 'old' rules in place - which yield an FOS uphold rate of 80%-90%.

boxbox2

Hi

I have received a letter today saying my complaint has been upheld.

They have wrote " However, you may be aware that on 8 October 2010 the British Bankers Association commenced a judical review of the complaint handling rules propsed by the FSA as well as guidance issued by the financial Ombudsman service on all payment protection insurances including CRP and loan payment protection insurance (PPI). As a consequence, there is uncertainty as to the rules applicable to how we should calculate any refund in relation to your complaint. Accordingly, pending the final outcome of the judical review proceedings we are unable to determine how to calculate any refund in relation to your complaint, however, as soon as the outcome of the judical review process is final, we shall calculate the refund owed to you."

Does any one know if I should write to the financal ombudsman for them to investigate my complaint or does this letter mean I just have to wait and I will eventually get some money back?

amersall

boxbox2 wrote: »

Hi

I have received a letter today saying my complaint has been upheld.

They have wrote " However, you may be aware that on 8 October 2010 the British Bankers Association commenced a judical review of the complaint handling rules propsed by the FSA as well as guidance issued by the financial Ombudsman service on all payment protection insurances including CRP and loan payment protection insurance (PPI). As a consequence, there is uncertainty as to the rules applicable to how we should calculate any refund in relation to your complaint. Accordingly, pending the final outcome of the judical review proceedings we are unable to determine how to calculate any refund in relation to your complaint, however, as soon as the outcome of the judical review process is final, we shall calculate the refund owed to you."

Does any one know if I should write to the financal ombudsman for them to investigate my complaint or does this letter mean I just have to wait and I will eventually get some money back?

:j Well done on your win :T:T:T if i were you, i would wait for them to be able to calculate.

di3004

Well done and Congratulations BoxBox2.:beer: