PPI Judicial Review?

marko-007

Hi i'm new on here and have a couple of question's regarding the Judicial review on PPI Claims.

I have sent off ppi claims for a loan and a credit card to lloyds around 2 weeks ago, i used the info on this website and read through loads of threads on various forums and i understand that it could unfortunately take a while to get any news (other than a template letter saying my complaint had been recieved and is being looked at) but the question's i have are about the Judicial Review outcome which i just googled and there is a link to the financial times website which says the outcome is expected on Wednesday (20th April).

How will the outcome affect us as customers requesting a refund?
Will our claims be ignored if they side with the banks?
Will our claims be decided quicker if the result goes against the banks?

Any info would be appreciated, Thank you

Mark

magpiecottage

There is no definitive answer at this stage because the decision will not be published until tomorrow morning.

Then it is possible that the losing side will appeal - so we will still not have clarity.

However, in the meantime, the banks should look at cases on the basis of what they do know and should consider whether aspects of the complaint not covered by the JR would force it to be upheld anyway.

marko-007

Thank you for replying magpiecottage, i guess we will all just have to wait and see what happens when the decision is published. is there a website that will be updated as soon as the result comes out? or is it just a matter of googling it?

di3004

marko-007 wrote: »

Thank you for replying magpiecottage, i guess we will all just have to wait and see what happens when the decision is published. is there a website that will be updated as soon as the result comes out? or is it just a matter of googling it?

Hi there

I think it will be published, I am aware Martin from this site is attending.
Fingers crossed.

di3004

BBA lost folks

Common_Sense_2

yep, the BBA lost, so now i'm off to help my grandad sue his old school for caning him in the 1930's. whilst it was legal then, it now isn't, so with this precedent i reckon grandad has a good case for compensation.

on a serious note, what this means is that if you were sold PPI before january 2005, even if they followed the rules (principles) in force at the time, if they didn't follow the rules that came into force from January 2005, then you can claim all your money back.

Example - person 'A' was sold loan with PPI in 2001, the sale met the principles set out by regulators and all were happy. scroll forward to 2011, person 'A' can now say, "the sale didn't meet the rules brought in place in 2005 (4 years after the event) so i want my money back.

dunstonh

Thats bad news for the majority but good news for the minority.

J_i_m

I don't want to put forward a ill-informed argument about retrospective legislation, however this culture of misleading and selling consumers financial packages that either don't need or are inappropriate for their needs has to stop.

It's a deplorable way to make a profit in my view and it's as morally wrong as mugging someone in the street.

Applying retrospective legislation might be daft, but then maybe it'll provide a shock consequence to complacent and greedy lenders and go some way to dissuading them from such seedy tactics in the future.

You could put the emphasizes on the consumer to be careful and not to be duped, but that would be unrealistic. In the real world people occasionally need to take out loans, finance packages, or mortgages otherwise they'd never be able to afford to get by, to then be hit with all manner of snide hidden charges etc that are unlikely ever to provide any kind of benefit to them is dishonest at best, and plain criminal at worst.

I'm not saying insurance is a bad thing, but for goodness sake, there should be far better procedures in place to protect vulnerable consumers from being fleeced.

amersall

Jim, i echo your post 100%.
The banks do not want to pay ppi mis sales out as they have lost the right to sell this product now and so have lost all the commission that goes with that.
Take Barclays First Plus, the commission on the ppi they "sold" was 70%, you tell me that was not a good incentive to sell this ppi for the company by fair means or fowl , and i will run naked down the high street.

dunstonh

...this culture of misleading and selling consumers financial packages that either don't need or are inappropriate for their needs has to stop.

It does. And the banks were wrong on PPI as were retailers etc who sold it with cards and the so forth.

Applying retrospective legislation might be daft, but then maybe it'll provide a shock consequence to complacent and greedy lenders and go some way to dissuading them from such seedy tactics in the future.

The problem is that it opens doors for the FSA to do this whenever it likes. In this case, the banks used an area that they were so woefully bad in to try and break the retrospective ruling. I would have preferred they had used an area where its clear no wrong doing had occurred.

I'm not saying insurance is a bad thing, but for goodness sake, there should be far better procedures in place to protect vulnerable consumers from being fleeced.

There is. Stop unqualified and unregulated staff from selling regulated financial products. The FSA itself admitted that MPPI (which is mostly sold under advice process) had a much lower failure rate. That process needed some tweaks still as it wasnt perfect (i.e. unregulated staff could still set them up) and make the individual responsible for their complaints in the same way IFAs are. Once you know you are personally responsible for the complaints and you have to pay the redress and/or the complaint goes on your personal file and follows you around (meaning you can get sacked as an employee and not get a job elsewhere) then it will clear it up. At the moment you have a two tiered level where some are personally responsible and others have no responsibility at all and can mis-sell and move around from firm to firm and keep doing it.

Getting the banks to deal with PPI complaints fairly didnt need retrospective rulings. Sorting out the problem going forward doesnt need much effort either. The problem is largely the FSA and its lack of focus. Banks were forcing PPI down the throats of people back in the late 1980s. 30 years later and the FSA still havent fixed it.

nikkilala_2

Sorry,I am a little confused with judicial review. I wrote to Lloyds in february with all my details regarding a £15,000 loan from 2001. I sent them all the details, account numbers and they sent me back a letter saying it was being dealt with but they had 8 weeks. Have heard nothing since. Because of todays ruling does this mean that I have a better chance of getting back my ppi?