ASK AN EXPERT: TRAVEL & HOLIDAYS. You've got a few more days to add your travel & holiday questions for deals expert MSE Oli
Banks challenge PPI reclaiming in High Court

1.7K Posts



This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:
"They are trying to derail plans to force automatic payback of billions of pounds to victims of mis-sold debt insurance ..."
"They are trying to derail plans to force automatic payback of billions of pounds to victims of mis-sold debt insurance ..."
0
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
Replies
I supported the banks on charges, these were clearly set and out customers were aware, sales advisers making inaccurate or false statements is a totally different situation.
Is there not some legal route whereby the banks could face large fines for bringing unwarranted legal action?
I could understand their earlier complaints about the FSA ruling as that was typical FSA retrospective rule changing. Something IFAs have had to put up with for years but don't have the clout to challenge. The banks do and as PPI is an area that mostly affects them, they have decided they dont like retrospective rule changes. So, I do have sympathy with them on that front. Although they could have picked a better product class to challenge it with as everyone knows how poorly sold many of these PPI cases are.
I hope the banks win from the point of view of retrospective rule changes but I hope they lose because the banks need to be taught that there are consequences to selling and advising incorrectly.
Not that miss-selling occurred or that either of the following practices are miss-selling:
selling a product without identifying whether it offered protection to the customer in their specific circumstances; or
giving the implication that such cover was a condition of the loan when it was not.
As I recall the OFT won then won again and then lost. This litigation thing is not a game of two halves.
J_B.
Then we'll change the rules later, to prevent it happening in future (until you find another workaround) and you can keep all you ill gotten gains.
This is pretty much what happened with bank charges. You'll notice they've fallen generally speaking. Still waiting for someone to explain how, in a competitive market, the charges became so high and the conditions so uniform...
Thats the argument the banks are using against the FSA. i.e. If there are rules you cant change and retrospectively apply them. They should be applied from that point onwards.
where is the taxpayer involved?
Thats not a valid argument as the taxpayer did not "bail out" most of the banks.
The issue of whether the FSA rules are retrospective are not as clear cut as you would have it. The FSA are arguing that the ''new'' rules are not new at all and are merely more detailed clarifications of the existing rules.
What is not in any doubt is that in attempting to overturn FOS rules (published in 2008) the BBA is seeking to quash them - retrospectively.
So from a retrospective perspective, the words 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black' can be safely be applied to the BBA.