BBA - v FSA - PPI Judicial Review

[b3ckford]

Sorry to keep hijacking this. Thread, but llyods have sent me a aknowledgement letter already and i only spoke to them yesturday lol the JR has kicked them up there bum. Hopefully get a good outcome

[joe90-123]

Well thats it , the BBA has dropped its case against the fos and fsa so no appeal and following loyds, Barclays have also announced they are putting aside 1 billion to compensate it's customers who where mis-sold ppi.

So the remaining banks should follow very shortly

 

They have finally admitted they have been caught with thier hands in the till and are going to make good what they have done.

 

James.

[manchesteruni]

http://www.bba.org.uk/media/article/bba-statement-regarding-judical-review

 

"The BBA on behalf of its members judicially reviewed the FSA and the FOS regarding the retrospective elements in the proposed FSA rules for handling PPI complaints. The judgement was handed down on 20 April 2011 and found in favour of FSA and the FOS. The BBA was given until 10 May 2011 to appeal. "In the interest of providing certainty for their customers, the banks and the BBA have decided that they do not intend to appeal.

"We continue to believe that there are matters of important principle which we will be taking forward in other ways with the authorities."

Notes to Editors

 

Complaints handling guidance

 

If you feel you have grounds for complaint you should contact your bank directly. There is no need to use a complaints management company.

[bach]

When we all get compensation, It would be a great gesture to give something back to this site

CAG have worked hard on this site to keep it up and running.

 

WELL DONE

CONSUMER ACTION GROUP

 

[moneyproblem]

YAYY!

 

Question is it true that any PPI pre and post January 2005 is not included in the subject dispute? Well RBS are claiming this, hence they are still stalling on a refund and claim that they and BBA may apply for an appeal - yea right

[johnnymitch]

I'm not too sure about the 6-year rule if the PPI premiums finished before that,but IMHO, If PPI continued beyond that date , the whole refund should be paid ... as it is a package ... if it is wrong after 2005 , it's wrong before in those cases ...

 

Be interested to see hear what the PPI experts on here think ... I think FOS and FSA will have to keep close watch on them ... they'll try to wriggle out of as much as they can ..

 

I also think it's a bit cynical of Lloyds ,, as it means their shares are down , therefore us (the shareholders) have to wait longer until the time is right to redeem the shares for the treasury .... i.e . US !

[moneyproblem]

Well mine was add to my loan in 2007 but they are finding all the excuses under the sun to wriggle out of it this is my 3 rd letter to them, I am thinking I may have to take them to court. They claim there maybe an appeal when they fully know there aren't going to be one.

[joe90-123]

Ref the so-called 6 year rule:

All finacial institutions were regulated from Jam 15 2005 and that is the date when miss-selling can be claimed from .

But some were regulated under a voluntary basis much earlier than this ( some as far back as 1999 and some ealier )

What you have to find out is when the finacial company that you are claiming against was regulated as this will give you a start point for your claim.

 

All third party brokers of ppi were also regulated in 2005 but as far as i'm aware non were regulated before this date

 

If the compay you have a claim against has since gone under or into default with the FSA you can still process you claim through the FSCS

 

As previously stated slightly incorrectly on this forum, that if you have no joy with a broker you can persue the original creditor ,

this is next to impossible as the OC has legislation on there side that they were not responsible for the ppi if it was sold through a broker.

 

ie :

if say you purchased a sofa from DFS and the credit was arranged through Loyds but the ppi was sold to you at the point of sale , it's the broker who you have to claim against.

 

Same detail applies to a mortgage broker if they broker the ppi and the mortgage seperately

 

James.

[b3ckford]

Any idea when lloyds where regulated?

[dx100uk]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE 6YRS RULE ON PPI RECLAIMS!

the only time it MIGHT come into play, is IF they can PROVE you KNEW it could be reclaimed 6yrs ago or at whatever previous date.

[sec 32[c] ] it is a MISTAKE - so does not count under the 6yrs rule.

 

as for the 'broker' being responsible' 9/10 this is a smokescreen put up by the OC to confuse punter trying to reclaim.

 

if you are PAYING the OC then you get it BACK from the OC.

 

they MUST have or ARE CURRENTLY still forwarding on your PPI to the broker

 

dx

[Fred_Funk]

I think there's a bit of confusion here and people are, albeit inadvertently, talking about two different things.

 

Of course, you can reclaim beyond six years as long as it can't be demonstrated by whoever it is you're claiming against that you have known of this possibility for at least six years and done nothing about it.

 

At the same time, whilst you can make a claim dating back to pre the statutory regulation of PPI in January 2005, you may find it rather more difficult to prove your case.

[dx100uk]

yes already travelled this route..........

 

but you try and prove the lender PAYS or PAID the broker the PPI upfront when the loan started

they didn't !

 

all the money is/has gone to the lender and the 'broker' sees nowt of it

 

one big smokescreen.

 

they were happy to supposedly let the broker sell ppi on their behalf that they knew nowt about, but are paying the broker for

 

utter twaddle!!

 

go get the OC.

 

dx

[Scouserlad]

Lloyds TSB credit card new port are still "unknowing" what to do to deal with complaints, asking for a "few more days", FSA are telling people all banks should be issuing responses on complaints.

[Fred_Funk]

yes already travelled this route..........

 

but you try and prove the lender PAYS or PAID the broker the PPI upfront when the loan started

they didn't !

 

all the money is/has gone to the lender and the 'broker' sees nowt of it

 

one big smokescreen.

 

they were happy to supposedly let the broker sell ppi on their behalf that they knew nowt about, but are paying the broker for

 

utter twaddle!!

 

go get the OC.

 

dx

 

With respect, I'm beginning to get confused now.

 

Can you, please, spell out exactly how you're defining 'the lender' and 'the broker'.

 

Thanks.

[Fred_Funk]

The contractual or actual relationship between the creditor/broker/provider is irrelevant to the consideration of who is responsible - and therefore liable for - the sales process.

 

On what authority do you base you view on?

 

Do you seriously believe a creditor or provider will refund a claimant when the FSA, the authority on the matter, clearly places the liability firmly on the broker?

 

What you say makes sense to me. However, for the sake of clarity - and my peace of mind - could you provide a 'real' example, ie one with a named creditor/provider and broker. Thanks.

[dx100uk]

gentleman...........

 

 

we are here to HELP PEOPLE

 

not to keep putting up barriers saying

 

no you cant do this

 

or

 

you cant go that way.

 

pers, if you can't post with any positive HELP then it p'haps better not to post at all.

 

please concertrate your efforts on resolving the issues members face..........

 

lets finds a way around it.

 

 

whichever way its dressed or smokescreened

 

THE OC CHARGED THE punter PPI - AND TOOK MONEY FROM THEM FOR IT.

 

let the OC be the in the firing line until / if these powers that be get their act together and realise what has happened.

 

the recent victory is a very big fwd movement in the PPI fight that has been going on here since CAG started - and i'm confident it will also lead to these 'issues'

about lenders/brokers etc being resolved

 

i'm sure that those efforts can now be refocused to get these payments back!

 

dx

[daisy102]

Hi

 

I hope you dont mind me asking this but I have been refused a refund of ppi from the OC. They have no documents to send me relating to the ppi.

 

I also made a sar to the insurance company who I assume underwrote the ppi. They have no record of me and sent my PO back referring me back to the OC who they say holds all the records! Could you please tell me who's responsible for holding the policies etc as I can't get any sense out of either of them. Thank you

[Fred_Funk]

A lender only comes into play with single premium PPI where the cost of it is added to the loan, although the seller of the PPI is still liable for any mis-sale.

 

A provider is the insurer. Many banks sell PPI on behalf of insurance companies but it is the banks that are liable by virtue of selling it.

 

The broker is the seller that sells PPI policies on behalf of a provider. That could be a bank, car dealer, electrical shop or anyone that offers credit.

 

For example Swinton Insurance Brokers were fined £770,000 by the FSA for mis-selling PPI as the broker. They were neither a lender or a provider.

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/swinton.pdf

 

Thanks for that. The only thing I can't comprehend now is the talk of OCs, or original creditors, and brokers... won't these be one in the same? And if not, please can someone give me an example of a situation in which they won't be. Thanks.

[joe90-123]

Purchased a Sofa from DFS the broker

credit taken out with HFC the Original creditor

PPI taken out with commitments Brokered by DFS but payed for through HFC as the original creditor..

I have been informed by the FSA that the miss-selling is by the broker DFS

 

Whether that is the correct advice from the FSA will be tested shortly as DFS refused the case on the grounds that the PPI was sold in there opinion correctly so it's now in the hands of the FOS

[citizenB]

This is a discussion thread, would all those posters requiring help, please start your own threads. You will find you get more help that way.

 

[daisy102]

Hi

 

Sorry about that , thank you will do as advised

[citizenB]

No problem, let us have a link to your thread when you have started it up. You can pop that on here

[dx100uk]

I can assure you that the only reason I post is in order that people get the right advice and information.

 

Can I respectfully ask what source or authority your view is based on. I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm genuinely interested to know.

 

because thats the way it has always been.

 

the more people continue to fire at the people they paid their PCM's too the more focused the attack will be.

 

in recent months now

FOS/FSA uncle tom cobbly are all giving smokescreen info

this ultimately unfocuses the campaign.

 

someone took their money for PPI

the industry are getting quite good at diverting the arrows because 'people' keep bring doubt into consumer forums the industry rub their hands together

 

so where is the money for the punters PPI FOS/FSA go get it for me

i paid the OC - your problem now - dont give me the run around.

 

secret commissions are behind it all

then the whole of the CCA industry will fall apart.

 

dx

[HSBCrusher]

In most cases, there will be no "broker".

you go in a bank/shop, you get a loan/card, they add on the PPI at the same time. No broker. You chase the bank.

 

The instances where a lender can credibly claim that a broker acted wrongly would be the exception rather than the rule... in recent years when credit has become hard to come by many have indeed gone through brokers who themselves have greedily slapped on PPI, and I would suggest in that instance the broker would be first port of call.

[Fred_Funk]

In most cases, there will be no "broker".

you go in a bank/shop, you get a loan/card, they add on the PPI at the same time. No broker. You chase the bank.

 

The instances where a lender can credibly claim that a broker acted wrongly would be the exception rather than the rule... in recent years when credit has become hard to come by many have indeed gone through brokers who themselves have greedily slapped on PPI, and I would suggest in that instance the broker would be first port of call.

 

For clarity, are you agreeing with Contador?!

 

He says responsibility lies with 'the seller'... who is 'the seller' in the situation you have outlined above? Is it 'the lender' who you approached for the goods/loan or the broker?