Personally, I hope the banks win. Not because they didnt mis-sell as in many cases they did. However, the FSA being allowed to change rules years down the road and apply them retrospectively is just plain wrong. Complaints should be judged on the rules in place at the time of the sale.
If retrospective regulation is allowed, then the cost of retail financial products and distribution will go up.
I can understand your sentiments, but the banks do shaft people. My elderly mother in law was sold Critical Illness cover by Lloyds in connection to a loan, and further they would not cancel the policy.
Whatever the regulations, that is plain wrong. She is retired and on low income, it's completely unforgivable.
Personally, I hope the banks win. Not because they didnt mis-sell as in many cases they did. However, the FSA being allowed to change rules years down the road and apply them retrospectively is just plain wrong. Complaints should be judged on the rules in place at the time of the sale.
If retrospective regulation is allowed, then the cost of retail financial products and distribution will go up.
Is that right, well what about all those consumers who were missold and had there claim turned down, and yes I hear you say well they should have gone to the FOS, but the point is in a grand scale of things and bearing in mined the mental capacity of many of those consumers that just would not have crossed there mind and/or understood the FOS fact sheet enclosed with many claims that are turned down.
Indeed they got ripped-off in buying it so it is just as easy to rip them off again we live in a democratic society which have a very broad spectrum of mind capacity.
the banks like the FSA rules when they can put overdraft charges reclaims on hold but don't like them when they have to keep paying PPI refunds ....
what's the point of having any FSA rules if a trade lobby can challenge anything they don't like?
and when they lose money on their financial casino's they come to the taxpayer for help .... why should private capitalist companies be given govt help?
Yes. I think that a lot of the complaints would still result in upheld decisions under existing rules. Its really only the opportunistic ones that would benefit from retrospective legislation.
Just out of interest Dunstonh, what were the rules applicable at the time and how have the FSA applied them retrospectively? I was under the impression that the rules applicable at the time were a rather broad set of principles which the regulated firms agreed to abide by?
I hope they rule in the favour of those mis-sold ppi, I couldn't claim when I needed to as I was told my previous condition of asthma voided my insurance even though I was never asked anything about my health problems.
Just out of interest Dunstonh, what were the rules applicable at the time and how have the FSA applied them retrospectively? I was under the impression that the rules applicable at the time were a rather broad set of principles which the regulated firms agreed to abide by?
Yes, I shouldnt have used "rules" as the word as its more principles and guidelines but they are still sufficient to deal with the existing complaints without brining in retrospective "rules".
I hope they rule in the favour of those mis-sold ppi, I couldn't claim when I needed to as I was told my previous condition of asthma voided my insurance even though I was never asked anything about my health problems.
That doesnt require retrospective rule changes though as that could easily be handled under the normal rules.
I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
please can someone help me i have been following this for a long time but i am so confused. what happens tomorrow? how will it effect ppi claims? Iwas mis sold my ppi back in 2001 & 2002 by firstplus but i am pursing the insurer so what does this result tomorrow mean to my claim and i can assure you i was ripped off and mis-sold. please enlighten me?
please can someone help me i have been following this for a long time but i am so confused. what happens tomorrow? how will it effect ppi claims? Iwas mis sold my ppi back in 2001 & 2002 by firstplus but i am pursing the insurer so what does this result tomorrow mean to my claim and i can assure you i was ripped off and mis-sold. please enlighten me?
The result of this is at 10 in the morning, there will be a possible appeal on the losing side, which may hold back complaints even longer, yet I do believe investigations have to continue.
Keep a check on the update tomorrow, the best of luck on your case too.;)
That's the point though. It was only mis-sold if the rules in place at the time of the sale were broken. If no rules were broken then it was not mis-sold.
Do we go and prosecute smokers who used to smoke in pubs and restaurants because it was allowed in the past but not now? Do, we issue speeding tickets to those that drove down a road at 40mph before a speed limit came in to reduce that?
But deception, fraud and theft have always been crimes!
I hope the FSA do win, i'm owed about 3k plus interest, i was mis-sold with welcome finance, they're on the rocks now, what happens if it puts them under, obviously someone else would by the debt but who would pay me out?
Replies
I can understand your sentiments, but the banks do shaft people. My elderly mother in law was sold Critical Illness cover by Lloyds in connection to a loan, and further they would not cancel the policy.
Whatever the regulations, that is plain wrong. She is retired and on low income, it's completely unforgivable.
Is that right, well what about all those consumers who were missold and had there claim turned down, and yes I hear you say well they should have gone to the FOS, but the point is in a grand scale of things and bearing in mined the mental capacity of many of those consumers that just would not have crossed there mind and/or understood the FOS fact sheet enclosed with many claims that are turned down.
Indeed they got ripped-off in buying it so it is just as easy to rip them off again we live in a democratic society which have a very broad spectrum of mind capacity.
Regards
what's the point of having any FSA rules if a trade lobby can challenge anything they don't like?
and when they lose money on their financial casino's they come to the taxpayer for help .... why should private capitalist companies be given govt help?
Just out of interest Dunstonh, what were the rules applicable at the time and how have the FSA applied them retrospectively? I was under the impression that the rules applicable at the time were a rather broad set of principles which the regulated firms agreed to abide by?
Yes, I shouldnt have used "rules" as the word as its more principles and guidelines but they are still sufficient to deal with the existing complaints without brining in retrospective "rules".
That doesnt require retrospective rule changes though as that could easily be handled under the normal rules.
The result of this is at 10 in the morning, there will be a possible appeal on the losing side, which may hold back complaints even longer, yet I do believe investigations have to continue.
Keep a check on the update tomorrow, the best of luck on your case too.;)