MSE News: Banks lose crucial PPI judicial review

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

Strictly speaking, they are principles, not rules but yes if they are not complied with then a consumer might be entitled to redress.

The principles are rules - this was the conclusion of the judgment - but the difference is that the breaching of principles are not actionable in law by a private individual - but the breaching of them can give rise to consumer redress if enforced by the FSA or taken into consideration by the FOS.

magpiecottage

There seem to be some here who are jumping to the conclusion that I am an apologist for the banks.

I am not - I was simply putting their argument.

Let me put my view:

• Banks ARE correct in saying that legislation should not be retrospective - and they should only be judged on the basis of the standards as they stood at the time.
• If a PPI complaint is upheld then the redress will be the same regardless of the reason for it being upheld. Therefore if a complaint should have be upheld on any ground NOT covered by the JR, it should be redressed and closed.
• Similarly, any case where the JR is not relevant should be either upheld or rejected as appropriate and closed.
• This would leave those cases where the matter rests solely on the outcome of the JR.

It seems to me that the banks have instead been largely sending out holding letters on all cases that fall within the JR, whether or not they could be upheld on other grounds. That is clearly contrary to FSA Principle 6.


I agree with src007 - the FSA does seem to allow the banks to get away with it. A small IFA would (rightly) incur the wrath of the FSA if they behaved like this but with banks it seems that hand-wringing is all it is willing to do.


I also think FOS could handle these cases better. If a complaint comes in then onus should be on the bank to demonstrate that no other aspect of the complaint can be upheld and it is therefore necessary to await the decision of the court. If it cannot do that then it should be upheld - so I am largely agreeing with Consumerist on that point.


Had that happened, then the backlog they now have would have been far smaller and it would already have been decided that the complaint should not succeed on any other ground. Thus it would be a straight "yes" or "no" for all of them.

observerdude

I looked at this sort of insurance a very long time ago and deduced for myself that it was unlikely to be any good either for me or many others. The banks are entirely culpable, it appears, for cynical miss-selling and exploitation of disengaged and sometimes gullible customers, and their moral standpoint is so often in question over this and many other issues, not least the virtual (if indeed not absolute) destruction of the trustworthiness and competence of the economic and financial systems under which we all strive to exist. But I am afraid that we, and particularly the politicians, are also to blame for letting this all happen. We have a 'sort of' democracy, and if this worked properly the banks would not be able to continue to treat us all in the manner in which they do. This recent court victory may be a light at the end of a very long tunnel, and I do so hope that it is, but it may equally be quickly snuffed out by the self- interest of politicians and their 'friends'. However "All grist to the mill!" for you Martin Lewis, and any others who are prepared to put effort into trying effectively to challenge and change any of the many appalling aspects of the way in which today's bank's and financial institutions behave to their ordinary customers, and sometimes, maybe often, also to their corporate customers, and especially to their presumed masters (who should be the elected politicians) all of whom seem to fall at the last fence (no doubt for host of varied and worrying reasons) in completing an effective course of challenge to, and reform and control of these Goliaths. One final plea to all: Please never blame the front-line staff of the banks &c. (with whom we always have to deal initially to try and get satisfaction) for any of these issues. They are generally fairly low paid, of varying degrees of competence and ability from low to very high, and they are certainly not responsible for the policies of their middle and senior management. Copyright: 'Observerdude'

ellie59

:think:Whether the Banks ultimately win or lose this case, be assured of one thing - everybody will pay through increased charges for other services !

the_knitting_drummer

ellie59 wrote: »

:think:Whether the Banks ultimately win or lose this case, be assured of one thing - everybody will pay through increased charges for other services !

Sounds good to me, I don't see why overpriced PPI should be subsidising other products to make them artificially cheap.

planneranne

I was most certainly mis-sold PPI in 2006 as I had cancer at the time and I was(am) self-employed which are both things that precluded having a PPI in the first place. I have an ongoing claim(since 8 mnths ago) being administered by Belmont Thornton, but even with what should be a straightforward case as mine there has been major delays in the processing. Has anyone else out there havinf problems with this bunch- or am I just the 'lucky' one?

themacmac

With the ever growing evidence from across the world of the banks long-term greed, unfairness and fraud when will one of our so-called 'elected representatives' ('elected' possibly, but 'representative'??? I don't think so) instigate an action against a sample group of senior bankers, one each from the main currency areas, for crimes against the global economy to be heard at the International Criminal Court?

The aim would be to have those at the top sentenced according to the percentage of the global debt related to their currency area, e.g. 10% for the Yen = 10 years for the CEO and Chair of Japan's biggest bank, and to get all the other bank staff who have benefited personally from the lack of effective regulation of any aspect of the banking sector to be stripped of their personal assets for redistribution amongst those who have lost their jobs, homes or ability to cover basic daily costs through no fault of their own?

This would not remove the banks commercial assets, which would further harm all of their customers, but show those who currently believe that they are untouchable, no matter what risks or bonuses they take, that irresponsible activities do have consequences... and give them a taste of what they have forced upon millions of hard working people.

Then the regulatory bodies must be toughened up and their staff held equally responsible for the outcomes of any lack of action against misbehaving banks, a first action to be the break up of all major banks into independent operations that are not too big to fail, but all too likely to fail if they don't accept their social responsibilities.

Biggest barrier to achieving that aim is the traditional hope of so many politicians who dream of becoming a bank director once they have been kicked out by their constituents. Still, it could be that ordinary Brits might now start to realise that we could learn something from our European neighbours... especially demonstrators in France, Spain, Iceland, etc.

2sides2everystory

That works for me TMM - we just need to get some public opinion behind it and then those few bank director wannabe politicians (well at least the ones that aren't already in the banks' employ or on special secondment) will soon learn to swim with the pervailing current.