MSE News: Lloyds 'wrongly rejecting PPI claims'

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Yes I do note it doesn't say that because it assumes that people realise that only a judge can give effect to it.

The Crown Prosecution Service seems to disagree with you.

It says "The Defendant must intend to make the gain or cause the loss by means of the false representation.

The breadth of conduct to which Section 2 applies is much wider than the old Theft Act deception offences because no gain or loss need actually be made. It is the Defendant's ultimate intention that matters."

See here

JuicyJesus

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I think this is without doubt the reason the Banks make no (public) comment about non-legitimate complaints in which the complainants don't even have PPI.
Makes sense to me.;)

I think Lloyds' boss has said something about it. He was promptly jumped on by the media and MSE for daring to suggest that not all people complaining about banks are fundamentally honest.

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Banks litigate against their customers all the time.

Yes - but we are talking of prosecution, not litigation.

Fraud cases are notoriously difficult to bring as the burden of proof is significantly higher than other areas of criminal law.

The burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt - the same as any other prosecution. Litigation, on the other hand, is balance of probabilities.

That is why John Terry was cleared of racism when he was prosecuted but the FA, which also worked on the balance of probabilities, found against him.

[Deleted User]

JuicyJesus wrote: »

I think Lloyds' boss has said something about it. He was promptly jumped on by the media and MSE for daring to suggest that not all people complaining about banks are fundamentally honest.

Exactly.
Even a public remark (not a stated intention to prosecute) created a media furore.

Alpine_Star

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I think this is without doubt the reason the Banks make no (public) comment about non-legitimate complaints in which the complainants don't even have PPI.
Makes sense to me.;)

''Lloyds boss hits out at ''fraudulent'' PPI compensation claims''

"We have to stop this," Horta-Os!rio said. "It's fraud".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/may/01/lloyds-boss-hits-out-fraudulent-ppi-claims

And just for good measure..

''Banks are wrong on PPI 'fraud' says top Ombudsman Natalie Ceeney''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9644105/Banks-are-wrong-on-PPI-fraud-says-top-ombudsman-Natalie-Ceeney.html

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

Yes - but we are talking of prosecution, not litigation.

The burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt - the same as any other prosecution. Litigation, on the other hand, is balance of probabilities.

That is why John Terry was cleared of racism when he was prosecuted but the FA, which also worked on the balance of probabilities, found against him.

Who's ''we''?

I was addressing this (albeit unlikely) Daily Mail headine - ''Bank now targets its own customers for trying to reclaim''.

Fraud cases can be litigated in the civil courts (and where the burden of proof is even higher)

The burden and standard of proof
In civil, as opposed to criminal, cases the standard of proof, is the balance of probabilities. That is to say, the insurer, on whom the burden of proof falls, must establish that the claim was, more likely than not, a fraud. This is a difficult standard to meet in practice and the burden of proving fraud is to some degree higher than is usual for civil cases

http://www.addleshawgoddard.com/view.asp?content_id=2786&parent_id=2781

JuicyJesus

Alpine_Star wrote: »

And just for good measure..

''Banks are wrong on PPI 'fraud' says top Ombudsman Natalie Ceeney''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9644105/Banks-are-wrong-on-PPI-fraud-says-top-ombudsman-Natalie-Ceeney.html

Ceeney seems to be confusing the issue further.

"Did I have PPI?", as she puts it, is a valid question. Bluntly stating "I was mis-sold PPI because the advisor said I had to have it and I had a pre-existing condition and I was self-employed" when you don't know if you had PPI or not, or you don't actually think you were mis-sold, or you've made the reasons up and you just want money, is not.

Then again Ceeney's foreword to the most recent Ombudsman News blames the banks for the fraudulent complaints being against them, so I am incline to take what she says with a small pinch of salt anyway.

magpiecottage

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Ceeney seems to be confusing the issue further.

I am incline to take what she says with a small pinch of salt anyway.

She also told the Treasury Select Committee that the qualifications taken by IFAs were just sales oriented. Different from the ones I took then.

So I would take what she says with enough salt to keep every road in the country snow and ice-free all winter.

[Deleted User]

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Ceeney's foreword to the most recent Ombudsman News blames the banks for the fraudulent complaints being against them, so I am incline to take what she says with a small pinch of salt anyway.

Indeed, a pinch of salt...;)

Kaz_b

Was wondering if anyone can help me. My mum received a rejection letter from Lloyds regarding her ppi claim. Since then she has heard through Martin being on the tv that she should try again. Could someone please advise on how she should do this. Thank you. X