MSE News: Banks lose crucial PPI judicial review

humbug12

In cases like this where the banks behaviour is deemed wrong by a court or by the FSA/other regulator, it seems a good idea that the costs and damages be required to be paid out of funds payable to shareholders rather than passed on to the customer.

If it were possible to make that happen, then banks could expect to be punished by shareholders for actions likely to lead to reduced shareholder returns.

Apologies if this notion has been suggested before (very likely I suppose).

di3004

Was checking lloyds site earlier and they have since updated due to the announcement made today.

http://www.lloydstsb.com/payment_protection_insurance_complaints.asp

A part of the write up here......

What does the outcome of the Judicial Review mean for my PPI Complaint?
The Court has now delivered its judgment on the Judicial Review of rules governing Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) sales-related complaints. The Parties to the legal proceedings may now consider whether they wish to appeal the decision.
We will be providing updated information on our customer websites setting out our position, what the judgment means for customers and what will happen next as soon as we can.
Both we and the BBA want this matter resolved as quickly as possible for the benefit of our customers and we are actively engaged with the FSA and FOS.
In the meantime, we will continue to deal with customer enquiries and complaints and have employed additional staff to manage customers’ queries about their PPI policies.

Butti

the banks have 'exhausted all avenues' - now you're making me laugh!

Culex

di3004 wrote: »

http://www.bba.org.uk/media/article/judgement-handed-down-on-bba-judicial-review

Judgement handed down on BBA judicial review

“On behalf of its members, the BBA requested a judicial review of the way in which the industry should handle complaints about PPI sales, as set out in the Financial Services Authority's policy statement.
“Whilst the UK banking industry has to date implemented every reform on PPI sales and complaints handling required by the regulators, the additional requirements in the policy statement effectively apply new standards to past sales, which we believe go beyond the rules and regulatory requirements which were developed by the regulator over time.

“It was due to the widespread concerns that the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service had not properly applied the law in this area – and only having exhausted all other avenues for resolving the underlying dispute that a judicial review was sought.
“We are disappointed with today’s judgment and now need to consider the details of it very carefully as well as next steps, including whether it would be appropriate to apply for permission to appeal.”

I do not know which is the more incredible - that the banks ever believed they had a viable case, or that they now believe that the public should still be deceived by the above bovine ordure.

It was not some "new regulation" that forbade banks from mis-selling PPI on the basis that it was "compulsory" when it was not, as uttering untruths to get another to agree to a contract has long been a criminal offence.

The only hopeful aspect of this silly and sorry saga is that the FSA awoke from its slumbers for long enough to act against such egregious misdeeds.

RmG_2

Culex wrote: »

Does anyone really believe that the Fundamentally Supine Authority will even threaten such action?

The question I'm interested in having answered is what avenues can the consumer go down to get insurance if the banks have there sales license withdrawn?

Would this only affect the retail front, or the back ground boys?

How easy, and what are the cost implications in opting out of the mainstream?

airliebird01

i was given a parcial refund by egg on my ppi and was told that if the judicial reveiw went againts the banks i would recive some more !!!
how much longer is this going to carry on ?!

Jged

Are we just talking about banks losing the PPI judicial review? What about insurance companies? My old PPI was taken out with Pinnacle Insurance who have flatly refused to refund me? My case is still ongoing with the Ombudsman.

2sides2everystory

MSE_Martin wrote:

The only credible threat is suspending their licence to do insurance business – nothing else will scare them into compliance and it should be done right away.

Comex wrote:

Does anyone really believe that the Fundamentally Supine Authority will even threaten such action

Don't be so sure they haven't done so already in the recent past with some classes of insurance and investment.

PPI_Technichal_Expert

Culex wrote: »

What else might one expect of the Fobbing-Off Service?

The fos are investigating complaints they are not a regulator and are not there to punish banks! The sooner you guys get that into ur heads that the fos isn't there to stand up for consumers against the banks the better.

magpiecottage

Petef wrote: »

Lets face it the regulator should have stepped in long ago to stop this but didn't!

Therein lies the banks' argument.

The FSA should have put rules in place at the time, not years later and backdated them.

The banks do have a point. It is a bit like putting a speed limit in, backdating it and then retrospectively fining drivers.

That is not to pass comment on the banks activities but it really is no way for a regulator to behave.