Hi Fred As I see it, the claiming of compound contractual interest (CCI) has little to do with the FSA or FOS per se (though the FOS do comment a bit about restitution). It is a basic legal principle that can be argued when money has been wrongfully extracted, as the Sempra case demonstrates. It is somewhat confusing to link it to the PPI Judicial Review in anyway. The JR concerns itself with the reasons for PPI refunds and the principles that apply etc. It remains open to any claimant to seek to recover CCI on any capital amounts they have had to pay to a lender, as long as they are happy with the case law around doing so and that a higher claim amount (which claiming CCI produces) may spur the lender to fight their claim more assiduously. But Sempra is established precedent so people can and are using it and getting results.

Hi Fred_F Have you had a good look at the ICOB rules? I understand that these are directly actionable in law. The way I see it (and would therefore argue it), the FSA principles and their endorsement within the Judicial Review gives the Principles at least persuasive authority in law. Both ICOB and the Principles have come from the same source (FSA), have similiar purpose and the JR mentions this. There is now an underlying recognition that providers aren't expected to simply fulfill the less strict standard (ICOB) whilst ignoring the Principles.

Hi folks, no, no thread as I've not had a PPI reclaim to speak of yet. But we shall see, I may start one to assist a friend in the near future. You're right Caro that the bases for the miss-selling is unique to the case at hand, I think though, a template that covered the majority of reasons would be helpful. Reb, thanks for the link. I'll take a look when more able.

Hello There Any news? Is it all wrapped up?

Folks, please keep in mind, that the FOS' rulings are only binding on the regulated entity. They are not binding on the individual.

Does anyone know whether CAG or MSE have POCs for PPI claims? If folk are being directed to legal action, isn't it about time?

In fact, I believe that if morgage lenders were to try to use the same argument that banks eventually used to 'win' the bank charges saga - you know the one about cross-subsidising of costs, profits and inclusion in overall package of services etc, they could get in quite a bit of trouble. The tolerance (and associated consequences) for default is so much lower in the mortgage arena that this would simply be untenable as the whole goal of the mortgage market is responsible lending. Which means defaults are supposed to be kept to an absolute minimum. This is quite different from a personal current account which, though it may come with overdraft borrowing features, is not primarily designed with responsible lending and borrowing as it's primary objective.

I and at least one other person I helped (not a Cagger), managed to get some arrears fees back without having to go to the FOS or the courts! In fact, my friend has a bit of a property portfolio so most of the accounts he got money back on were Buy To Let mortgages! Again, as has already been commented upon in a number of places in CAG, the SC ruling does NOT apply to anything other than what the SC claimed it did. For example Credit Card companies are still paying out to default fee claimants as they know they can't really rely on the SC judgement.

Hi Tifo I'd appreciate further clarification from you. In principle, I don't agree with much of this, especially since I and others have had some success re-claiming mortgage arrears fees. Is the above the FOS' summary findings, what the lender has told you or what you've come to believe?

By the time the banks are done, I very strongly suspect that they’ll end up paying nowhere near the £9billion in compensation that’s been estimated. For the most part, between all their stalling tactics and covert disinformation/misinformation campaigns a lot of would be claimants will simply give up. I suspect that much of the £9 billion earmarked will ultimately be used to offset their tax liabilities going forward and won’t be a ‘real’ loss after all. Meanwhile, it’s game on for those who know what to do.

It's yet another stalling tactic. Gotta admit it, these guys have been doing this a long time and they're good. I think there's a strong case that though a complaint was originally rejected under the 'old rules' so to speak and the FOS complaint period has lapsed, you can always modify your complaint , however slightly , and that makes it a NEW complaint which has to be looked at, all over again! Two can play that gamo!!!

Does CAG have any PPI POC templates or anything that would be suited to that?

Contador, may I ask what you would do in this situation? i.e. where the 'seller' was an IFA who has since gone out of business. Thanks.

Yes, Els, but it's kind of moved away from just the JR onto exactly who to pursue for PPI for PPI mis-selling claims. So it probably IS worth having a new thread devoted to that - it would help many people. My own personal view is that people should pursue whoever they can - one and all if necessary. Contador has a good point about legal liability for the sale. Yet Dx has a very pragmatic and perhaps more powerful point in that you should pursue whoever you've been paying premiums to - whether it's single premium PPI, periodic or added to the loan/credit facility. It's also fairly obvious that by receiving the premium money they (lender and or provider) definitely have a stake in the validity of the sales process and the suitability of the product for that buyer. After all, when a punter puts in a claim, the provider doesn't send him/er back to the 'broker' first, they assess it themselves etc.

From the BBA Website http://www.bba.org.uk/media/article/payment-protection-insurance-complaints-handling Guess the 10th of May can't come fast enough. It'd be a bit silly if they wait until the very last day, before lodging their appeal. Any heads up on whether they're working on an appeal? Any thoughts on what their real chances of success might be?

Even so, I still think lenders should at least be good enough to keep addressing existing and current complaints and making refunds as and when they arise. This way they only have to fight the one major battle with the FSA on the 'root cause analysis' issues which came about as a result of their 'systemic failures' in the first place. They'll probably eventually lose that battle too but because the cost to them could be so much higher, it's probably worth dragging things out a bit.

This could turn out to be even more expensive for the banks. By delaying these claims, they could end up liable for far more by way of restitutionary interest and damages. As someone has pointed out, it now seems moot that there was definitely large-scale mis-selling so it is highly likely that the majority of existing PPI complaints will be upheld and therefore paid out. I don't think the banks were too upset about PPI refunds in general as that had been going on for years. It's the introduction of this 'root-cause analysis' remedy that the FSA introduced that's really ticked them off. It's one thing to address complaints as and when they arise. It's another thing to go and seek out people that have probably been mis-sold to in the past in order to offer redress. I don't support them, but I can certainly see why the banks are in a tizz as this'll certainly cost them a lot more than bank charge refunds.

Flower What track has this claim being allocated to? It's probably not small claims is it? Unless you've already done so, I would very strongly suggest you have a good read of the threads below as they deal with your issues head on. You should probably read this one first: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?283443-Embarrassed-Defences-and-the-problems-with-them.&highlight= http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?241827-Legal-Action-how-to-start-off.-IMPORTANT-IF-YOURE-BEING-SUED&highlight= http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?255329-CPR-part-18-vs-CPR-31.14-Confused-well-read-here&highlight= http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?295908-some-very-important-information-from-a-place-where-no-one-can-see-%28moved%29&highlight= http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?173201-why-you-shouldnt-use-section-77-78-CCA-1974-if-you-want-the-signed-agreement&highlight= If your case is not Small claims and the claimant is in breach of your CPR requests, your strategy could actually be more simple. PLEASE do not be put off by the number of pages in these threads, there're always a lot of "filler posts" in the larger threads so you can just skip those! You're your own best helper so please put in the effort. Also, even if you don't find the answers you need, it is my experience that when I understand more about a subject, I can ask for input more meaningfully. HTH

Thanks for the update. Keep surviving!

Congrats Floricita Well done and thanks for the update.

Floricita How much has this cost you in terms of court claim fees, in total, so far? I take it the will pay these costs as part of the settlement?

Ss How much has this cost you in terms of court claim fees, in total, so far?

Zingy How much did this cost you in terms of court claim fees, in total? I take it they paid this part when settling?

Looks like this's what's happened in your case!