PPI Judicial Review?

amersall

nikkilala wrote: »

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?

Hi there, in your case you should give them 8 weeks to give you more information on your claim.
If you did not get a letter from them to put your case on hold due to the JR, then they may be dealing with your case.

nikkilala_2

amersall wrote: »

Hi there, in your case you should give them 8 weeks to give you more information on your claim.
If you did not get a letter from them to put your case on hold due to the JR, then they may be dealing with your case.

Thanks for that, the letter that I recieved from them states that "your complaint will be dealt with as quickly as possible, but if you need to speak to me in the meantime, please do not hesitate to telephone me" And their was no mention of the judicial review

amersall

nikkilala wrote: »

Thanks for that, the letter that I recieved from them states that "your complaint will be dealt with as quickly as possible, but if you need to speak to me in the meantime, please do not hesitate to telephone me" And their was no mention of the judicial review

That sounds promising x fingers crossed.

philzi

nikkilala wrote: »

Thanks for that, the letter that I recieved from them states that "your complaint will be dealt with as quickly as possible, but if you need to speak to me in the meantime, please do not hesitate to telephone me" And their was no mention of the judicial review

I've put claims into LTSB in the last few months. Sent the questionnaires in for the 3 loans I have either had or have PPI on with LTSB. Had the letter with a quote above (think its standard gumpf from them) no mention of judicial review, but 8 weeks later I got another letter stating they'd looked into the complaints but were putting everything on hold due to JR...so 8 weeks to "just" work this out...mmmm just playing the FSA/FOS at their own game.

Good luck though...

Phil

marshallka

Common_Sense_2 wrote: »

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.

There were still rules for selling insurance prior to the FSA and very similar to the more recent ICOB/ICOBS rules. GISC had there own code of conduct and so the ABI.

You are/were supposed to trust banks/insurers were always acting in your interests (and not their own first and foremost) with your money and in utmost good faith when selling you an insurance contract. They did not in lots of cases and debt spirals and its difficult to get back on track.

The law also comes into this (when using FOS) and the Misrepresentation act of 1967 is not something new. If a bank missold a policy and it can be mostly proved then they should compensate. In fact half these sellers of insurance want to think themselves lucky that they are not doing time for fraud and deception. They are getting away lightly in some cases.

marshallka

dunstonh wrote: »

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.

Great with hindsight but from what some whistle blowers have posted they were "made" to sell insurance with loans etc. If they did not then it was back to the dole queue. Its not like they were employed to sell crack cocaine, they were employed by reputable banks so half the time thought they were doing little wrong. They were just earning their bread and butter as per their contract.

Insurers should be made responsible whereby brokers were not regulated. They surely had a duty to make sure that the agents selling their products were fit and proper to do so. Insurers would then come under compulsory jurisdiction at the FOS.

dunstonh

Great with hindsight but from what some whistle blowers have posted they were "made" to sell insurance with loans etc. If they did not then it was back to the dole queue.

That has been the case for the last 30 years. Its not new. Everyone knows it. However, the FSA has historically been seen as pro bank and ignored it.

Insurers should be made responsible whereby brokers were not regulated. They surely had a duty to make sure that the agents selling their products were fit and proper to do so. Insurers would then come under compulsory jurisdiction at the FOS.

Effectively they are except the distributor takes the liability. Sometimes that is the insurer, sometimes not (bank in the case here). Liability is not the issue. However, when the staff know that complaints are going to have little or no impact on them there is no deterrent. As you say, they see the risk as keeping their job by hitting sales targets. Not getting complaints.