BBA - v FSA - PPI Judicial Review

[citizenB]

I see Caro started a thread in respect of the BBA taking on the FSA with regard to the new rules that the FSA wish to impose on PPI sales. Although it was stickied, it kind of petered out.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?280317-***URGENT***-Get-your-claim-for-PPI-in-now!!(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

It looks as though the JR will take place on 25th of this month. I have collected some information together.

Edited January 17, 2011 by citizenB

[MARTIN3030]

Maybe in the PPI forum and one of the info ones...with the numbers affected its going to be of interest to lots.

I saw that the PPI claims have severely dented the FOS budgets and they have had to cut the number of claims they expect to deal with in 2011.

 

heres a press statement;

 

PPI cases damage Ombudsman reserves

(UKPA) – 5 days ago

The Financial Ombudsman Service has said its reserves have been "significantly" reduced after a 40% jump in the number of complaints about controversial payment protection insurance it handled.

The group expects to receive around 68,000 disputes between consumers and providers relating to the product during the 2010/2011 financial year, more than for any other product.

It said the workload was significantly higher than the 46,000 PPI cases it had budgeted for, with individual cases taking longer to resolve, as some businesses were being "less co-operative" in progressing them.

As a result it expects to resolve a total of only around 180,000 cases during the current financial year, down on the 210,000 it originally predicted.

The high volume of PPI cases has contributed to a drop in income for the Ombudsman, which derives 80% of its funding through case fees, as it has resolved fewer disputes. It has had to expand significantly its team of staff to deal with PPI complaints, at a cost of £2 million, while it has also had to use contractors to deal with cases on the issue.

Overall, the group said it would end the year with a deficit of £8 million, which would be met out of its reserves. It expects its caseload to remain volatile during 2011/2012, mainly due to the ongoing issue with PPI.

The steep increase in the PPI caseload contrasted with complaints about other financial products, which are actually expected to fall by 7% during the current financial year. But the group said there had been a general shift towards more complex and harder-fought cases, with a higher proportion requiring a formal decision by an ombudsman.

The Ombudsman plans to freeze its case fees and the total levy paid by the financial services industry during 2011/2012, while it hopes to reduce its own costs by a further 10%.

PPI covers debt repayments if the holder is unable to work due to an accident or illness or if they are made redundant.

But it has come in for heavy criticism after research found it had been mis-sold to many consumers who would never be able to claim on it while others felt pressurised into taking it out alongside a loan or credit card. In the past five years there have been more than a million complaints made to firms about PPI.

Copyright © 2011 The Press Association. All rights reserved.

[rebel11]

If claimants weren't 'stonewalled' by financial companies and dealt genuinely with claims then the FOS wouldn't have deal with all the complaints, it's getting silly.

[MARTIN3030]

The Ombudsman plans to freeze its case fees and the total levy paid by the financial services industry during 2011/2012

 

Since its due to the banks dragging their feet and failing to co operate thats led to them being at breaking point-they should be INCREASING the case fees for those who are responsible.

[citizenB]

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/cp/cp10_06.pdf

 

 

 

Why are we issuing this Consultation Paper (CP)?

 

1.1 In CP09/23 we:

• consulted on Handbook guidance concerning the fair assessment and, where

appropriate, redress of PPI complaints;

 

• consulted on a Handbook rule requiring the re-assessment of all previously

rejected PPI complaints made since January 2005; and

 

• stated that where a firm has identified (from root cause analysis of complaints

or other sources) failings in its PPI sales practices, we would see it as

appropriate (from Treating Customers Fairly considerations under Principle 6)

for that firm to consider the position of non-complainant consumers who may

also have suffered detriment from such failings, including considering ‘whether a

wider redress programme is called for’.

 

1.2 At the same time as CP09/23 we published an ‘open letter’ to the industry, detailing common failings in PPI sales practices.

 

Background

 

1.9 Our proposals in CP09/23 stemmed from our concerns about weaknesses in PPI selling practices and our serious concerns about the fairness with which firms had assessed the rising number of consumer complaints about PPI sales. We anticipated that the proposals would lead firms to:

 

• treat PPI complaints more fairly and consistently, thereby benefiting consumers

(and reducing the current heavy burden of cases on the Financial Ombudsman

Service); and

 

• deliver fairer outcomes

 

 

At 1.13, -

 

Responses from industry were almost exclusively negative about our proposals arguing that we had:

 

• not demonstrated that there was a genuine problem around PPI sales or around PPI complaint handling....

 

[citizenB]

The Banks are concerned that the FSA want to impose the new rules retrospectively and is the subject of the JR.

 

That rules that were not in existence at the time the original policy sales were made should not apply.

 

Edited January 17, 2011 by citizenB

[citizenB]

19th October 2010

High time the bankers came back to planet Earth

I feel as though I am on a crusade against the banks – honestly, it is not a deliberate quest of mine, but their actions continue to defy belief.

 

 

With those dreadful adverts of Halifax employees playing DJs, or NatWest employees all giggles and smiles giving much-needed advice to customers, they are trying to give the impression that they are not the hardened greedy souls they have been portrayed as.

 

 

Yet behind the scenes their actions suggest they don't give two hoots about treating customers fairly. And my reasoning is neatly summed up by the notorious PPI debacle.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/comment/paulfarrow/8072385/Its-high-time-the-bankers-came-back-to-planet-Earth.html

 

 

Edited January 17, 2011 by citizenB

[citizenB]

http://www.bba.org.uk/media/article/ppi-factsheet

 

The BBA claim that the JR is not just about PPI...

 

What is the case about?

 

This judicial review is not simply about PPI: it is about the ability of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to apply new standards to old sales.

 

The FSA recently published a policy statement and open letter to the industry advising they should consider complaints about PPI not just by reference to the detailed conduct of business rules which applied at the time but also to standards that are based on the FSA’s guiding principles for doing business. The BBA has applied to the Courts for a judicial review of (i) the FSA’s approach contained in its policy statement, and (ii) the Financial Ombudsman Service’s approach to PPI sales complaints contained in its guidance

 

 

We believe the FSA is effectively creating a precedent which permits it to apply new rules to previous sales – even where those sales were regulated by other FSA rules.

Therefore this ruling might not only affect customers who have bought PPI, but might also set a precedent that could affect all products regulated by the FSA

[url=http://www.bba.org.uk/media/article/ppi-factsheet][/url]

[MARTIN3030]

In a nutshell its just another stalling tactic.

Pity so many chose to go the the FOS and instead should have sued the banks for a refund.

I have not seen many claims upheld in the banks favour-certainly not any which were well presented.

[MARTIN3030]

And I suppose those claimants who HAVE taken the banks and lenders to Court and have cases in the system-will no doubt have them screaming for a stay pending the JR.

[citizenB]

The final version of the Open Letter Standards - the ones that are the focal point of the BBA's Judicial Review application - is at appendix 4, page 135:

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps10_12.pdf

[citizenB]

Part of a Speech by Ken Hogg, Director, Insurance Sector, FSA

Marketforce and Institute of Economic Affair's (Future of General Insurance conference) - The Regulatory Priorities for 2010

Dated: 4th November 2010

Marketforce and Institute of Economic Affair's

Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)

 

The issues surrounding PPI are well known. We have recently confirmed a package of measures to protect consumers, and the Competition Commission has announced a point-of-sale prohibition for PPI.

Although there is a judicial review of our PPI complaints handling measures, we strongly believe the package of measures we have outlined is a sensible and fair solution for consumers and the industry alike, and we are vigorously contesting the judicial review.

We will be monitoring the implementation of our guidance closely to ensure real change is delivered.

We understand that depending where you are in the value chain you may feel the responsibility for the PPI issues lies elsewhere. However, the onus is on the entire industry to ensure it treats all customers fairly.

It is worth remembering our 2007 Policy Statement that gives guidance on the responsibilities of providers and distributors for the fair treatment of customers. This has not lost any of its currency.

We are also aware of modified versions of PPI or alternative products being developed and offered to consumers that may well grow in volume. Some of these are insurance products, such as a short-term income protection product that is not linked directly to a specific loan or credit product, and some are within the product features of the credit or loan advanced, often known as a debt waiver.

This is an area where we are keen to ‘intervene early’ and engage with firms. We have started our analysis of the conduct risks they may present. You can expect further communications from us as we develop our thinking in this area.

[citizenB]

8th November 2010

 

http://www.compliancy-services.co.uk/news/article/497/onus-is-on-entire-industry-over-ppi-says-fsa

 

The entire insurance industry must take responsibility for treating customers fairly, such as in the recent payment protection insurance scandal, it has been claimed.

[citizenB]

November 19th, 2010[url=http://www.fs-cp.org.uk/publications/pdf/icb_issues.pdf][/url]

 

Financial Services Consumer Panel (who advise the FSA) submission to Independent Commission on Banking http://www.fs-cp.org.uk/publications/pdf/icb_issues.pdf

''In the last five years more than a million complaints have been made to firms (not just banks) about PPI, yet the latest action from the British Banker's Association is to launch a Judicial Review of the FSA's policy on complaints handling procedures, while some banks, such as Lloyds Banking Group, unilaterally and without an FSA rule waiver, have decided to halt complaints handling procedures altogether where they believe the outcome of the review might have some bearing''

 

''In addition we have a further hiatus on banks addressing some PPI complaints following the Judicial Review application by the BBA and action by Lloyds Banking Group and others''

 

''.......this lends credence to suggestions that some banks are manipulating the reporting requirements to minimise the number of complaints recorded or are not recording complaints at all.''

[citizenB]

Banks defy FSA on PPI rules

 

By Josephine Cumbo

Published: November 26 2010 17:11 | Last updated: November 26 2010 17:11

 

Big lenders, including government-backed banks, are refusing to adopt new standards for dealing with payment protection insurance complaints, as they deepen their dispute over regulatory reforms.

 

New guidance for PPI complaints handling is due to come into force from December 1 to stop so many complaints being rejected by companies but later upheld in the consumer’s favour by the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

However, the British Bankers’ Association (BBA) said most of its members will not be applying the new standards while they are locked in a legal dispute with the Financial Services Authority (FSA) over its wider market reforms. “While there is a legal challenge, the issue of implementing the rules falls away,” said the BBA.

 

The BBA’s stance means that all PPI complaints – apart from those related to claims payouts – will grind to a halt, pending the outcome of a Judicial Review set for late January.

 

In October, major lenders including Lloyds Banking Group put tens of thousands of disputes on ice, claiming they would be affected by the Judicial Review. Even so, the FSA said it expected companies to apply the new guidance from December 1, and warned it will take enforcement action if necessary.

 

PPI – designed to repay loans in the event of accident, illness or redundancy – has been the subject of more than 1m complaints in the past five years.

 

FT.com / Money / Current Issue - Banks defy FSA on PPI rules

 

Banks defy FSA on PPI rules - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Finance

[citizenB]

Banks urged to follow rules on PPI Complaints

 

 

 

By Nicky Burridge,

Published: 02/12/2010

Banks were yesterday urged to honour new rules designed to ensure complaints about controversial payment protection insurance are handled fairly.

 

 

Read more: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2035252?UserKey=#ixzz1BCLgQ8nf

 

 

But many lenders are reportedly refusing to follow the new guidance due to an ongoing judicial challenge over a separate set of FSA regulations relating to PPI complaints. Adam Phillips, chairman of the FSCP, said: “Consumers deserve to have their complaints taken seriously. Firms should not hide behind the judicial review to effectively put complaints on hold.”

 

 

Read more: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2035252?UserKey=#ixzz1BCLsE4KY

[rebel11]

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2010/10/santander-takes-consumer-side-in-ppi-battle

[citizenB]

From the FSA website

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/consumerinformation/product_news/insurance/payment_protection_insurance_/response/index.shtml

 

What is the latest news on the BBA's legal Challenge

To try and ensure customers are treated fairly when complaining about the sale of a PPI policy, we developed a package of measures for firms to follow from 1 December 2010. These measures are designed to ensure firms handle complaints properly.

The BBA started legal proceedings on 8 October 2010 (known as a judicial review) challenging the lawfulness of these measures. We consider the measures to be a fair solution for consumers and the industry and are strongly contesting this challenge.

[citizenB]

http://ezinearticles.com/?An-Ill-Wind-For-British-Banks-Could-Mean-A-Windfall-For-The-Consumer&id=5623703

 

About 25 million PPI policies are sold in the UK every year and in a lot of instances the recipient is unaware that they have it. Many people can now claim compensation and get back thousands of pounds that they have paid out. Currently around four out of five PPI claims are upheld if it needs to go to the Financial Ombudsman.

 

But claiming your money back from missold payment protection insurance may not be that easy! In summer 2010 the Financial Ombudsman finally reacted to public pressure and insisted that banks review over 200,000 cases of rejected PPI claims. The British Banking Association (BBA) initially reacted favourably to the idea until the Regulator imposed terms to be adhered to retrospectively on all these claims.

 

 

 

The BBA's members fought back and have now taken the Regulator to the High Court to get an official adjudication on the new rules. This Judicial Review is due to be heard sometime Q1 2011.

 

In the meantime, the vast majority of high street banks and lenders have used this as the perfect excuse not to process any further PPI claims until the Judicial Review is heard and the outcome published.

[citizenB]

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/regulation/fos-warns-ppi-review-may-exhaust-reserves/1024326.article

 

The FOS says: “We may not know the final outcome of this legal action much before the end of the 2011/2012 financial year. This means we could face some extreme, but far from implausible, operational and financial scenarios which might result in our incurring substantially increased costs with far lower income.

 

“For example, if financial businesses were to decide to suspend cooperation on PPI cases as a result of the legal action, our loss of income from case fees in just one month could lead to an operating monthly deficit of up to £4m. This would exhaust our reserves within six weeks.”

[citizenB]

Whilst quite a few banks are refusing to co-operate with processing claims, Santander are not even party to the JR

 

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2010/10/santander-pledges-to-process-ppi-claims-234769/

 

I think banks they swallowed up had in fact already been fined huge sums eg Alliance and Leicester, so it could be they are just keeping their heads down

[citizenB]

http://www.compliancy-services.co.uk/news/article/469/uk-banks-face-pound-5bn-payout-over-new-fsa-rules-on-ppi

 

 

 

UK banks face £5bn payout over new FSA rules on PPI

 

New research by Morgan Stanley has estimated that if the changes go ahead, the UK's top five banks will have to pay out a total of £5.1 billion under a worse case scenario, Reuters reports.

 

Even if under a 'base case' scenario, in which it is assumed that one-fifth of PPI customers make a claim of which half are upheld, banks still face payouts of £2.6 billion.

 

The FSA recently promised to "vigorously contest" the BBA's judicial review.

[MARTIN3030]

The fos says: “We may not know the final outcome of this legal action much before the end of the 2011/2012 financial year. This means we could face some extreme, but far from implausible, operational and financial scenarios which might result in our incurring substantially increased costs with far lower income.

 

“For example, if financial businesses were to decide to suspend cooperation on PPI cases as a result of the legal action, our loss of income from case fees in just one month could lead to an operating monthly deficit of up to £4m. This would exhaust our reserves within six weeks.”

 

 

 

 

The banks of course know this so are effectively holding the regulators to ransom.

This is a scandal and the banks should be made to pay dearly for it.

[citizenB]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24214[/ATTACH]

 

BBA on why it is bringing the Judicial review.

[citizenB]

Links pertaining to the whole issue of the PPI fiasco and Judicial review.

 

 

 

Story link: FOS: PPI disputes up 40%

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) continues to see significant growth in its caseload, with a shift towards harder-fought cases and a 40% rise in the volume of payment protection insurance (PPI) disputes.

http://www.bankingtimes.co.uk/2011/01/11/fos-ppi-disputes-up-40/

 

 

Financial Ombudsman consults on its plans and budget for the year ahead.

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/news/updates/plan_and_budget_11-12.html

 

 

Leaked letter reveals one banks' dirty tricks on PPI reclaiming - MSE report

 

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2011/01/leaked-letter-reveals-banks-dirty-tricks-on-ppi-reclaiming

 

HSBC is deliberately stalling compensation claims at the Ombudsman for mis-sold debt insurance, a leaked letter reveals.

 

The banking giant is withholding vital information from the independent Financial Ombudsman Service to help it settle payment protection insurance (PPI) disputes (see the PPI Reclaiming guide).

 

It marks an intensification in the war over PPI reclaiming which has developed in recent years as banks fear they may have to repay billions.

 

In a letter seen by MoneySavingExpert.com – after the bank gaffed by sending paperwork meant for the Ombudsman to its customer's claims management firm – HSBC not only stubbornly refuses to co-operate with the arbitrator but urges it not to consider that case.