Britain’s banks face the threat of a huge new PPI bill that could add billions of pounds to the £30bn already paid out in compensation, following a court ruling lauded by claims management companies as “hugely significant”. The case opens the door to a renewed claims bonanza as it suggests that even if the PPI policy was not mis-sold, the buyer may still be able to reclaim because the scale of the commissions paid were excessively high. While the ruling does not mean any more cash for people who have already received compensation, it may allow cases that have been rejected to be reconsidered. The ruling is likely to be appealed against but if it stands it presents a fresh PPI nightmare for Britain’s banks, after one claims expert said new payments could run into the tens of billions. Lloyds Bank has so far paid out £18.8bn for mis-sellingicon claims, while Barclays has paid more than £9bn and RBS nearly £5bn. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jul/02/uk-banks-could-face-new-multibillion-pound-claims-after-ppi-ruling

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/144/144.html 144/3 – Mr A complains that his home insurance is too expensive Mr A, in his eighties, had been living with dementia for a few years. He didn’t use a computer, and his wife, who’d always taken care of the home expenses, had died about seven years before. So after this he’d asked the insurer to send things to him by post. Mr A’s nephew got in touch with us when helping his uncle out with his household finances. He’d noticed the home insurance for his uncle’s two-bedroom terraced home was £1,400. He’d found similar policies online for as little as £150. Indeed his existing insurer was quoting £300 for more comprehensive cover. He’d been with the same insurer for 15 years, originally taking out the policy for £200. The policy had automatically renewed every year and Mr A had never made a claim. Mr A’s nephew complained on his uncle’s behalf that the price of the policy wasn’t fair. He told us his uncle was very upset to think his insurer had taken advantage of his loyalty. In response to Mr A’s complaint, the insurer said the price was correct and that the quotes on their website were lower because of “online discounts”. Mr A’s nephew asked for our help to sort things out. how we helped When considering whether Mr A was treated fairly, we looked at whether he’d been given clear information when his insurance was due to be renewed. He needed to have been able to make an informed decision about accepting the price and cover offered. Mr A’s renewal documents were sent to him by post. And for the first four years the price had increased very little. In the fifth year, it went up by 15% and by similar amounts after that. The insurer’s renewal letters told Mr A that as a valued customer he’d received a number of discounts for making no claims and staying with them. But we thought the difference in price between Mr A’s policy and the online policies couldn’t be explained by the online discounts alone. The renewal letters also referred to other policies being available, but said that unless his circumstances had changed, Mr A didn’t need to do anything. Overall, we thought that the information he’d had at renewal could have been misleading. From what Mr A’s nephew told us about his personal circumstances and his lack of direct engagement, we thought it should have been clear to the insurer that Mr A might need additional help in making an informed choice about whether to renew his policy. We didn’t think the insurer had done enough to let him know there were other, potentially cheaper, options available. Increasing his price each year without taking into account Mr A’s needs had left him potentially susceptible to detriment. We thought that his vulnerability should have been apparent from the fifth policy year onwards. That was also when the price of his policy had begun to increase significantly, the original new customer discount having been recouped by then too. We told the insurer to refund the difference in premiums, with interest, for each year between the price paid after five years and the subsequent renewal offers. The insurer also accepted our recommendation to pay £150 for the upset they caused Mr A.

Good evening all, I'm after some advice regarding changes my employer has made to my working day. Following the ruling in 2015 regarding travel to work time for mobile workers being counted as "working time", my employer has brought in changes at work from the beginning of this month. I work in the utilities industry, and my job involves me travelling around from site to site carrying out my duties. These sites include both company assets and customer properties. At the end of the working day, it is required that I return to my base location. Up until now, my working day starts at home and finishes when I clock out at base. We have always been paid from when we leave home until when we clock out at base. Travel home time has always been unpaid and our own time. From 1st October my company has now changed this to the following: We now clock in as normal at home, yet we now only start getting paid from when we reach our 1st job or after half an hours travel, which ever is the shorter. We then clock in again to start our "paid time". We then continue as before and clock out at base and then travel home in our own time as before. For the majority of my colleagues, their first job is over 30 minutes away from home, meaning that we are now having to do an extra 30 minutes a day for the same pay. This has in effect increased our working week by up to 2.5 hours. Having checked my contract, it states that I work a 37 hour week Monday to Friday, however after this change I will now have to do 39.5 hours a week for the same pay. My contract also states that any overtime is on an "ad hoc" basis only. The company have stated that the change to the EU law has brought in this change and that it is therefore not negotiable because it is now the law! Having trawled the internet, I cannot find anything which says that this ruling governs pay as this should be a matter for UK courts, not EU. Do I have any grounds to challenge this? Thanks in advance. MP.

I think this is the right place for this. Please move if not. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/pay-deductions-teachers-supreme-court-ruling-strike-precedent-a7753991.html

To put it bluntly Councils have been saying to people faced with homelessness that you will have the same issues as the street homeless have now so are not more vulnerable. Also because you have these issues before you become homeless there will be no risk soi we do not have to help you. Judge says [naughty word]! http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2015/05/vulnerability-a-fresh-start/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36845617 This Supreme court ruling will affect how Insurers deal with claims where Policyholders have been found to have told lies. " Lying on an insurance claim should not necessarily invalidate it, the Supreme Court has said, in a judgement likely to affect all household policies.It said collateral lies - which are untrue, but do not affect the validity of the claim - can be acceptable. The judges voted by four to one to change one of the important principles behind current insurance law. The insurance industry called it a "blow for honest customers", and warned that the price of policies could rise. The precise case involved a Dutch cargo ship, which ran into difficulty after its engine room was flooded. The owners deliberately lied, by saying the crew couldn't investigate an alarm, because the ship was rolling in heavy seas. In fact the accident was caused by bad weather, so the lie was irrelevant, the court ruled. The judge in the original court case said the lie amounted to a "fraudulent device", which invalidated the claim. The Court of Appeal upheld that judgement, but the Supreme Court has now overturned it."

Hi everyone, I'd be grateful for any advice you can offer: Plusnet offered terrible service so I reported them to CISAS. CISAS ruled that a) plusnet had to pay us £250, b) get our services working and c) if we decided to leave were not to charge us for any outstanding contract charges. We did decide to leave and in Dec 2015 I received an email informing me I needed to pay a final bill including outstanding contract charges. I responded asking for an itemised bill by post, and pointed out that they were instructed to not charge me for outstanding contract charges. I never received a response to this email, nor an itemised bill. I had prior to December been 'locked out' of my Plusnet online account so I had no means of checking the bill. Early Jan 16 I received another email from Plusnet- again, informing me I needed to pay a final bill including outstanding contract charges. I forwarded the initial email I had sent in December, again asking for the same information. Last week I received a letter from a debt collection agency on behalf of Plusnet. Plusnet have proved themselves to be utterly vile; they know I have a disabled son who suffers from anxiety and they - for many months - would instruct engineers to just turn up without any notice, even though I informed them of the problems this causes, and CISAS ruled in our favour over this issue. I have emailed CISAS with this information but wondered if there was anything else I should be doing and would be grateful for any advice. Thank you.

ASA Ruling on Guardian Recovery Ltd Guardian Recovery Ltd 4 Tustin Court Port Way Preston PR2 2YQ Date: 30 December 2015 Media: Facsimile, Internet (on own site) Sector: Financial Number of complaints: 1 Agency: None Complaint Ref: A15-309515 Background Summary of Council decision: Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld. Ad Two ads for Guardian Recovery Ltd, a debt collection agency: a. A fax received on 28 August 2014 stated "We will collect: overdue accounts, bounced cheques, bad debts. We will: enforce County Court Judgments, trace absconded debtors, credit check potential clients. We offer a guaranteed, fully-inclusive debt recovery service. 110% Money Back Guarantee... Nobody can do more to collect your debt and that's GUARANTEED". b. A claim on the "Services" tab of http://www.guardrec.co.uk, Guardian Recovery's website, seen in July 2015, stated "...The services of our Legal Team can be utilised without incurring the often unnecessary expenses of a separate firm of solicitors or a barrister". For further reading....... https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2015/12/Guardian-Recovery-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_309515.aspx#.VoO4xbaLQgs

Banks could face even bigger bills for mis-selling Payment Protection Insurance after the City watchdog said it was considering new rules following a landmark legal decision. In November last year, the Supreme Court said that Paragon Personal Finance, a secured loans company, had breached the Consumer Credit Act by failing to disclose that the PPI premium paid by a customer included a hefty commission fee to a credit broker. This means that even if the loan insurance was otherwise fairly sold, banks could be liable for mis-selling compensation if PPI was bought via a broker. On Wednesday, the FCA said the judgement in the case, Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance, may mean new rules on dealing with complaints, potentially opening the door for more compensation. “The FCA is considering whether additional rules and/or guidance are required to deal with the impact of the Plevin decision on complaints about PPI,” it said. “The FCA will be engaging with relevant stakeholders in the coming months in respect of this and it expects to announce its views on this, including next steps, at the same time as existing work.” The regulator is considering revamping the PPI rulebook, saying it wants to “meet its objectives of securing appropriate protection for consumers and enhancing the integrity of the UK’s financial system”. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11633767/Legal-ruling-could-pave-way-for-new-wave-of-PPI-claims.html PPI ruling may trigger a landslide of fresh mis-selling claims The City Watchdog could be forced to introduce new rules around PPI mis-selling complaints following a landmark court ruling. It could open the door to a landslide of fresh claims for compensation, even for those who have already been paid out for being flogged the often useless and expensive insurance. The latest wrinkle to the scandal – which has already cost Britain’s banks an estimated £24 billion – centres on commission payments to lenders and advisers. In November, the Supreme Court ruled in the Plevin v Paragon case that failing to disclose commission made the relationship between lender and borrower unfair. Susan Plevin, a 59-year old college lecturer, was charged £5,780 as an upfront PPI premium on a £39,870 loan. But almost three-quarters – 71.8% – of the premium was commission, with credit broker LLP Processing receiving £1,870 and lender Paragon getting £2,280. Plevin was not told about the commission and took proceedings against the two firms in 2009 for mis-selling because the policy was useless for her, but also on the basis that the PPI agreement was unfair because of the non-disclosure of the commissions. The Supreme Court’s Lord Sumption ruled that failing to disclose commissions led to a “sufficiently extreme inequality of knowledge and understanding”. http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/ppi-ruling-may-trigger-a-landslide-of-fresh-misselling-claims-10277984.html

Airline passengers hit with long flight delays continue to have compensation claims delayed or turned down despite a court ruling almost a year ago that was meant to have settled these once and for all. Rules state that passengers flying with an EU-based carrier or from an EU airport who reach their destination more than three hours late can claim up to €600 (£448) plus expenses, per person if the delay is within the airline’s control. Airlines can only refuse payment if the delay was the result of an “extraordinary circumstance” beyond their control and, previously, many had been claiming that routine technical problems fell under this definition. Yet a ruling, upheld by the high court last summer, should have changed that. It involved a claim by Ronald Huzar against budget airline Jet2.com for a delayed flight. The airline said there was an unforeseen technical problem, amounting to “extraordinary circumstances” meaning it did not have to pay compensation. Judges ruled against Jet2 and this was upheld by the Supreme court last October. It was hoped the ruling would clarify the strength of this common reason used to refuse a payout, but airlines continue to dig their heels in and ignore or contest the outcome. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/may/11/airlines-ignore-court-rulings-over-compensation-for-delayed-flights

in November of 2013 I had friend contacted and asked if I would purchase a computer for them as I am in the trade and get a better deal, they transferred the money to my Barclays account, I checked it was there and logged on to my supplier portal to purchase the PC. After selecting the model my friend wanted I entered my debit card details and was surprised when it was declined! I logged back onto the bank app and my account was empty, I phoned Barclays and asked what had happened and they said that there was a number of debit card transactions on my account taking all of the money, I complained and the money was returned to my account and I purchased the PC. A week later I received a letter from Barclays with a form to fill in on whether or not this was fraud, apparently the money was taken by a Payday loan company I have never dealt with for a loan I never had, I filled the form in and sent it back. A week later the money was again taken from my account. I contacted Barclays again and they said the Payday company had contacted them and said that their records were correct and therefore they were entitled to the money - so Barclays gave them it. I raised a complaint with Barclays and received a case number, I was told this would be handled and I would receive a reply within 28 days, 28 days later I received a letter saying it would be another 28 days and 28 days later another letter saying another 28 days. Eventually Barclays wrote to me and informed me that they had examined the complaint and ruled against me, I then contacted the FOS who took the case on, they contacted the payday loan company and Barclays and found that the loan was taken out but the address, DOB, full name and various other details were incorrect, the Payday loan company had passed these details to Barclays who checked them and found the details to be incorrect but STILL found in the Payday loan companies favor! At this point I had already changed banks to RBS (no better) and Barclays had put a default on my credit file as I was overdrawn by the £536 stolen from me. The FOS found in my favor yet Barclays asked for it to be escalated to an Ombudsman who found in my favor and ordered Barclays to put it right within 30 days, 30 days later Barclays returned the £536 to my account and that was that. This has left me very annoyed that they have gotten away so easily when I have had to fight for 13 months to get a result, is there anything else I can now do? Barclays are refusing to remove the credit file information and don't have to reimburse me for anything. They continued to say they were right all this time even when, by their own admission they knew the details were wrong! Can Anyone advise? Jayce

ALL THE PEOPLE SUCH AS BHALL AND THE REST OF THE POSTERS ON THE SITE THAT HELPED AND OFFERED INFORMATION TO DEEDS BEING VOID THREAD PLEASE SEE http://self-realisation.com/equity/banksterbusters/summary-judgment-mortgage-deed-declared-void-in-the-high-court/ :smile:

Hi I am just about ready to send my N1 form. Have completed POC but I am wondering whether I should include anything from the FOS technical notes: "This will involve the business removing the PPI premiums, any interest that was charged on the premiums and any charges (and interest on those charges) that would not have applied if the PPI had not been added to the account." Any thoughts? suvin

This just in: "The Court concludes that the 'arrival time', which is used to determine the length of the delay to which passengers on a flight have been subject, corresponds to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft is opened, the assumption being that, at that moment, the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft," it said. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/04/uk-eu-airlines-ruling-idUKKBN0GZ0VE20140904

With the new EU ruling http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27396981 will this extend to credit reference agencies?

SOURCE: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/2013/june/commission-welcomes-supreme-court-ruling-on-armed-forces-and-human-rights-protection/ 19 June 2013 In a landmark judgment today (Wednesday 19 June) the Supreme Court ruled that British soldiers killed while serving in Iraq were still under UK jurisdiction and so were entitled to human rights protection to the extent that is reasonable and does not interfere with the demands of active service. Serving in the armed forces inevitably involves risks and dangers which our servicemen and women take on willingly. This ruling will extend the same protections of their rights to members of the armed forces on operations abroad which already exist when they are in the UK or an overseas base. So for example, if their equipment is proven to be faulty then they should be protected from that at home and abroad. Simply being in active service should not mean our armed forces lose all protections of their rights. It will be for the courts to determine whether there were human rights violations or negligence in particular cases. However, the commission believes that the Supreme Court’s ruling provides a reasonable balance between the operational needs of our armed forces and the rights of those serving in our armed forces to be protected in the same way as we expect them to protect the rights of civilians abroad. The Court unanimously accepted the Equality and Human Rights Commission submission that members of the armed forces are under the authority and control of the state and should be subject to the obligations and benefits imposed by the European Convention on Human Rights wherever they are in the world. The case at the Supreme Court involved the mother of Private Phillip Hewett and other families against the MOD. Their relatives were all soldiers killed in action and are seeking to bring claims of negligence and breaches of the duty to protect life against the Ministry. However, their ability to do this rested on the Court finding that Article 1 of the European Convention, which provides that rights and freedoms should be available to all within the State’s jurisdiction, reasonably applied to the men whilst in Iraq. The Court found that it did meaning that their cases can proceed to trial. Lord Hope, Court Deputy President said: “The extra-territorial obligation of the contracting state is to ensure the observance of the rights and freedoms that are relevant to the individual who is under its agents’ authority and control, and it does not need to be more than that.” This case is one of several the Commission has intervened in as an expert third party to ensure human rights protections cover UK armed forces abroad to the extent that it is reasonable to impose such a duty on the state. The Commission made no submissions in relation to the families’ other claims. Commission deputy director, legal, Wendy Hewitt said: The Supreme Court’s ruling means that human rights protections have been levelled up so that we are no longer expecting our armed forces to fully respect the rights of civilians abroad while not being properly protected themselves. “From this basic principle it is now up to the courts to decide how this should apply in practice. “This is not about interfering with the way military decisions are made in the field but how everyone serving in the armed forces is given the protections they deserve.”

Hi I am new to this post. I claimed ESA in feb 2012 and went for my medical may 2012 came out with 0 points. I have severe depression and this got worse round january 2012 onwards I have 3 daughters and single before that I was working. At that time I was hiding my depression from my girls and I knew something was wrong I was getting so depressed I became suicidal but still very good at hiding it. I went to the doctors and was put on anti depressants and sent to a Mental Health Psychiatrist (emergency appt) was told I had severe depression and low mood. i received my ESA50 but as I was so low I couldnt even go out for help I had no option but to get my 14yr old daughter to fill it in but still never mentioned m depression still trying to hide it. She filled it in as I never wanted her to know about my depression I left the mental health questions blank never even got her to tick the boxes. I went for my ATOS examination in may 2012 and explained it (my 18r old daughter went with me but still trying to hide my problems I never took her into the room)I told the nurse everything and was in tears. (she was just a robot) on the notes that I received she has stated that I suffer depression and does not go to supermarket because of feeling low. daughter will go and do food shopping as unable to face going out as thinks everyone is staring at her daughter accompanies her everywhere states no friends and her family disowned her after getting divorced needed help to complete ESA50 due to feeling low helped by daughter Has no problem using phone Unable to make GP appts due to feeling low is helped by daughter bills are paid D/D Anyway the problem is I explained everything to the nurse as I cant go out she has made some of the notes but left alot out was asked if I watch TV i said no I cant concentrate. I got 0 points and then asked for a reconsideration again as I cant go out I got my daughter to help write it (my health problems were being picked up on by my daughters)(they are very suportive now) I appealed and have my date for 25th feb 13 and as I still cant go out and still suffer with depression I havnt got any help from anyone. I have been told to go to welfare rights or cab but i cant do it (its so hard to explain) There are a lot of other mistakes the ATOS nurse wrote Sleeps well (no i told here i dont sleep and on sleeping tablets) no problems doing housework (no i dont I dont have the energy) no problems making meals (no my daughter makes them as I lose interest and due to my memory I have done a lot of silly things that have been dangerous burning myself cooker was hot and I just went to pick the top up to wash not realising even though in hy head I knew it was hot) I am so panicky and stressed I dont know what to do I have had help to write a submission and would be so grateful if someone could look at it for me please. I have seen my dr (was a different one) no help he said he will write a letter but I dont know. It is so hard for me to ask for letters as I feel so embarrased and think people are judging me all the time and thinking bad that I am a failure. Please can someone help so sorry for the long post but Im so desperate

Both myself and my husband worked for a company who went Voluntary Insolvent. We received no notice, no final months pay and no holiday pay. The Tribunal ruled in our favor. The judge ruled i was to receive 2,500 and hubby just under 2,000. We have received a small amount each for no notice ie i received 430 my husband only 187 yet he was still entitled to a weeks notice.This was from the Government. We had a horrendous time getting them to pay and the Liquidator helped me a great deal. Now we are waiting for our Holiday pay and again they are coming up with all different excuses and dragging their heels. We will receive some Holiday Pay( as we have been informed by the Official Receiver who has been in touch with them that we are entitled to it) eventually but its a nightmare trying to get anything from them. I guess we can forget about the final month we worked for nothing. What was the point of going to a Tribunal? It has wasted our time and the Judges time because as they are Voluntary Insolvent they have no money. Am i right in thinking we will never receive the amount the Judge states we are entitled to?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/rate-swap-scandal/9639202/Barclays-in-court-over-mis-selling-claims.html

ECJ Gender directive. Background. Draft Directive on Equal Treatment On 2 July 2008, under its ‘Renewed Social Agenda’, the European Commission adopted a non discrimination package including a proposal for a new directive on equal treatment. This proposal prohibits discrimination on grounds of age, disability, sexual orientation and religion or belief outside the employment sphere, in the areas of social protection, including social security and health care; education; and access to and supply of goods and services which are commercially available to the public, including housing and transport. The new directive would come on top of four other directives; one on discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, both within and outside the labour market; one on discrimination in the labour market; one on equal treatment between men and women as regards access to employment; and one on equal treatment between men and women as regards access to and supply of goods and services. On the 2nd April 2009 the proposed directive was adopted by the European Parliament. The Government Equalities Office ran a 12 week public consultation from 5 May to 28 July in 2009 on the Commission’s Proposal. It has since published a summary of the responses. Negotiations on the Directive are continuing in Europe. Gender Directive Article 5(2) of the Gender Directive allows Member States to permit differences relating to gender in respect of insurance premiums and benefits if gender is a determining risk factor and that can be substantiated by relevant, accurate, and regularly updated actuarial and statistical data. st On 1 March 2011,in its final ruling on the Test Achats case regarding the opt out in Article 5(2) of the Gender Directive2004 the European Court of Justice(ECJ)declared Article 5(2) to be void with effect from 21 December 2012. As of this date, all Member States must consider the provision to be invalid. The ruling applies from December 2012,however its impact on insurance contracts concluded prior to this date and on those that remain in force beyond it is not yet clear. Test Achats, the Belgian Consumer Association, originally brought their case, before the Belgian Constitutional Court in 2009. They argued that the opt out provision in Article 5(2) was contrary to the principle of gender equality as enshrined in primary Community law, and in particular to article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union**. The Belgian Constitutional Court referred the case to the ECJ. The Advocate General gave her opinion to the ECJ on 30 September 2010 that the derogation should be annulled. IMPLICATIONS; Car Insurance,Over a long period,Insurers calculated premiums based on whether a driver was male or female.although statics showed that there was little difference in the amount of accidents occurred between women and men,there is evidence to show that costs to address incidents by women for the Insurers were significantly less. Young and new drivers are expected to be hit the hardest and already face high premiums. Traditionally,drivers with no history gave women an upper hand as they were rated as a lower risk than male drivers. A report from one leading Insurance company in July 2012,has revealed that insurance for a new male driver averaged £1060 more than that of a female in the 17-25 age group. The new ruling means that this mode of decision making will be unlawful. It is expected that young womens policies will rise,whilst young mens will fall slightly,and could see a 10% benefit. Young women meanwhile could face increases of up to 25%. As the December deadline approaches,It is a good idea for those women likely to be affected to sort out policies ASAP. Another way of softening the blow is for drivers to consider telematics (Black Box technology) which give scope for young drivers to prove their abilities as safe drivers,and enjoy discounts as a result. LIFE INSURANCE The ruling is likely to impact on life and health insurance too,since women have longer life expectancy than men. Whilst there is not much information available at the moment,it is accepted that womens premiums are expected to rise,although not by the 25% expected in the case of young womens car insurance premiums.Index linked or guaranteed policies are unlikely to be affected. Variable premiums however,could see an increase or decrease. Some experts are suggesting that those with variable policies should think about switching to a fixed one,but consider that prices could go either way. As always The CAG suggests that you seek independent expert advise before making any decisions. HEALTH INSURANCE Little changes are forecast,since women and men already pay similar rates,although women could see a small drop in payments for Income Protection Policies,which pay out for sickness,with men seeing a slight rise in policy payments. Looking around for a better policy before December is an option for those who think they may benefit.