MSE News: Banks defy FSA on new PPI rules

Alpine_Star

tifo wrote: »

The JR is to decide whether the FSA have the power to force banks to repay PPI going back over so many years, in much the same way the charges test case last year was to decide whether the OFT had the power to take action under UTCCR.

The bank would tell the court that, until they know the outcome of the JR, they cannot calculate how much to repay the consumer. So the claim should be stayed until then.

The JR is about how banks & the FOS should handle complaints and if banks should identify and act on systemic mis-selling. These issues are utterly irrelevant to any consumer/bank litigation.

In any court case it is for the judge to calculate how much is repaid to the consumer - not the defendant.

tifo

Alpine_Star wrote: »

In any court case it is for the judge to calculate how much is repaid to the consumer - not the defendant.

But the figure would come from the bank (from their records). And if they're not prepared to give that figure, due to the JR for example?

liam12779

But surely the banks can calculate the figure on the single payment of the PPI that has been sold to the customer?
And from previous claims where they have paid out in the past?

Alpine_Star

tifo wrote: »

But the figure would come from the bank (from their records). And if they're not prepared to give that figure, due to the JR for example?

What figure?

To make a court claim you have state the amount you are claiming and if you win the amount is verified by the judge. The figure might be contested by the defendant but the court doesn't rely on the losing party to calculate the value of the redress for the winner.

You are confusing the JR issues - which are all about complaints handling regulations - with the application of consumer law. They are completely different concepts.

chattychappy

A tad OT, but this judgment http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1240.html has some interesting commentary.

I agree with Alpine Star's analysis.

Enforcement of a "money award" would be way of application to a county court (in England & Wales) and an order obtained. (Possibly under CPR 70.5 / Form 322B, I'm not sure, the point being that the court wouldn't be considering the merits of the case.) Where the FOS has ordered some other kind of action, an (interim) injunction could be obtained under CPR25.

If it's "can't pay" rather than "won't pay", then the FOS can refer the case to the FSA for investigation. Ultimately the FSCS may pay out.

Whilst the ombudsman decision is supposed to be final and binding if accepted by the complainant, the defendant can seek JR, though on limited grounds. Relevant extracts from the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000:

229 Awards.
...
(2)If a complaint which has been dealt with under the scheme is determined in favour of the complainant, the determination may include—
(a)an award against the respondent of such amount as the ombudsman considers fair compensation for loss or damage (of a kind falling within subsection (3)) suffered by the complainant (“a money award”);

(b)a direction that the respondent take such steps in relation to the complainant as the ombudsman considers just and appropriate (whether or not a court could order those steps to be taken).

...

(9)Compliance with a direction under subsection (2)(b)—
(a)is enforceable by an injunction; ...


Schedule 17 Part III
16 A money award, including interest, which has been registered in accordance with scheme rules may—
(a) if a county court so orders in England and Wales, be recovered by execution issued from the county court (or otherwise) as if it were payable under an order of that court;

(... similar provisions for NI/Scotland).