BBA - v FSA - PPI Judicial Review

[citizenB]

Fred Funk and Contador, please take your squabbling off this thread.

 

Thank you.

[HSBCrusher]

In essence I agree with DX actually.

 

the broker thing is just a smokescreen.

 

the point being made is that if they try and say there was some "broker" involvement I would suggest you could easily argue there is no broker. The bank could only argue broker involvement if the broker was involved at the point of sale. A bank worker/shop assistant isnt a broker.

 

If you have actually yourself gone to a broker and got a loan via a broker and you got PPI slapped on by that broker then indeed you need to chase the broker. Otherwise the broker thing is just one big red herring.

[citizenB]

I'm not squabbling in the slightest. I'm trying to have an informed debate.

 

Then please start your OWN thread and debate your issues on that. Thank you.

[elsinore]

Then please start your OWN thread and debate your issues on that. Thank you.

 

citizenB, as you initiated this thread, can you please state its purpose?

 

Els

[citizenB]

citizenB, as you initiated this thread, can you please state its purpose?

 

Els

 

 

Purely to keep caggers updated on the progress of the Judicial review.

[elsinore]

This is a discussion thread, .

 

 

I thought Fred Funk and Contador were discussing an issue arising out of the JR, not squabbling.

 

Els

[bustthematrix]

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.

[citizenB]

The issue of ultimate liability between the sellers and providers of PPI is not one that should have any bearing on the delay of consumer redress:

 

The role of insurers and lenders in mis-selling PPI

Concerning provider/distributor responsibilities, where a firm is an authorised general

insurance intermediary, it is not bound, unless by contractual terms, to offer a particular

PPI policy provided by a lender. Indeed, in some cases, doing so may not be treating

customers fairly.37 Distributors are responsible for maintaining a compliant sales process,

and therefore should be responsible for redress, where a failing arose from the manner in

which the product was sold. If brokers feel that undue pressure was placed upon them by

lenders or insurers, they may separately have recourse to the courts if they so choose.

 

The issues in relation to agency law (e.g. whether the broker is acting (as agent) on the

part of the insured or the insurer (as principal)) are complex and fact specific, depending

on both the individual contractual arrangements between the parties and the specific

facts surrounding a particular sale. Again, brokers may separately have recourse to the

courts if they so choose.

 

Accordingly, we remain of the view that our Handbook text concerning PPI complaints and

redress is appropriately positioned in its emphasis on the seller of the policy, and we are not

making any changes to it in this regard.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27489[/ATTACH]

[citizenB]

In general terms there is no time limit:

 

 

Time barring and pre-2005 sales

Some firms argued that complaints about pre-2005 sales should not be included in the

scope of our Handbook provisions because they are all or mostly already out of time to be

considered on their merits (i.e. they are ‘time barred’ under our existing DISP rules).33

We disagree with this view. Decisions concerning the time barring of individual

complaints are ultimately for the FOS to make, but in general terms, our view (as set

out in CP10/6 para 3.14), is that general media coverage of the PPI issue, including

comments or publications by us, would not be enough to have given a consumer the kind

of specific ‘constructive knowledge’ required by DISP’s time limits.34

Accordingly, while some consumers who bought PPI before January 2005 may, on an

assessment of their individual circumstances and events, be deemed to have had appropriate

awareness before January 2008, such that they will be out of time by January 2011, our

view is that this is unlikely to apply to consumers generally (though that is ultimately a

decision for the FOS to make concerning complaints referred to it).

Conclusion on pre-2005 sales

There is nothing in firms’ responses which leads us to consider it necessary to retract

from our statement in the open letter concerning pre-2005 sales or to carve out

complaints about these sales from the scope of our final provisions. To do either would

leave substantially unaddressed the poor handling of a very significant proportion of PPI

complaints, and thus the significant potential consumer detriment caused by many of

these sales.

 

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

[elsinore]

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.

 

 

It has indeed and I was enjoying the debate. I fear you may have missed the point. As the JR has now reached a conclusion, I don’t see why that debate should not continue on this thread. Why boot off two contributors for squabbling, when they were having a perfectly rational discussion about a fundamental and important point?

Nothing wrong with a new thread, just the way in which it was proposed.

Interestingly, citizenB is now continuing the debate with posts 190 and 191.

Els

[citizenB]

Elsinore, yes you are correct and my apologies for snapping at Fred and Contador.

 

busthematrix, my reasoning exactly.. the banks and BBA have quit their challenge, the "discussion" as far as I was concerned was over.

 

Elsinore the reason for the two posts at 190/191 was that if a discussion is going to take off in a different direction, at least lets have the full story. I noticed that Contador had left off crucial information, which then led others to jump in the wrong direction

[elsinore]

Thank you, citizenB, for a very gracious and typically elegant response.

Els

[dx100uk]

urm after reading this today i wonder why only one line was reproduced......

 

even has examples of the routes to take and calcs.

 

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

dx

[Fred_Funk]

urm after reading this today i wonder why only one line was reproduced......

 

even has examples of the routes to take and calcs.

 

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

dx

 

Whatever you may choose to think, I'm really not trying to be difficult, just trying to get my head around all this.

 

That being the case, I'd be grateful if you could elaborate on the point you're alluding to, above - as despite having now spent the best part of an hour studying the text you've referred us to - I remain unclear as to what it is.

 

Thanks

Fred_Funk

[Fred_Funk]

Elsinore the reason for the two posts at 190/191 was that if a discussion is going to take off in a different direction, at least lets have the full story. I noticed that Contador had left off crucial information, which then led others to jump in the wrong direction

 

Again, I'm really not trying to be difficult, just want to get all of this clear in my head.

 

Moreover, it's entirely conceivable that I'm just a little bit simple. Be that as it may, I'm unclear what Contador has omitted to say - my reading of posts 190 & 191 is that they concur with what he's said in post 183 and would appreciate a heads-up.

 

Thanks

Fred_Funk

[MadKit]

Now I'm completely confused.

 

I was sold a "Lender" loan by an IFA so I assume he was the "Broker" acting on behalf of the Lender. I was not properly informed about the PPI which was added to the loan but the insurance itself was a Lender PPI product so surely the Lender is the only one who benefited from this? The IFA gained nothing from the PPI but did receive commission from the selling of the loan. However,the Lender has said that as the IFA was involved in the brokering of the loan, I have to contact them for redress. This makes no sense to me as this person as far as I know is no longer an IFA. As I assume the loan agreement itself is a regulated credit agreement and the PPI premium was added as a single premium to the loan, then should I be targeting the Lender company itself and not the IFA? I hope I'm making sense here.

 

MadKit

[MadKit]

So I'm supposed to go and find someone who no longer works as an IFA and take him to court? Even though the loan company name is on both the loan and PPI? How can the Lender not be responsible for their own products irrespective of who brokers it? Again, if the loan agreement is a regulated credit agreement surely from the wording above this means the Lender is responsible for the PPI?

 

'In the case of a regulated agreement Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act will often make the lender liable for antecedent negotiations by the broker.'

 

The following seems to be the opposite of the above in cases of single premium PPI:

 

PPI only becomes part of the credit agreement in single premium PPI where the lender lends you the entire premium which is added to the loan. Most PPI isn't sold this way though but notwithstanding, the FSA's policy statement makes clear that even in these cases the complaint should be directed at the broker and it is a matter for the broker to subsequently seek redress from the lender and not an issue that should concern the consumer.

 

What I don't understand is why this does not concern the consumer? Does this mean seek redress from the broker and it is their responsibility to contact the lender?

 

Sorry, still confused.

Edited May 11, 2011 by MadKit

[MadKit]

Oh I absolutely do want to take "them" to court for PPI! In fact, I'm off to the court today to file the first claim with the exceptional help of a couple of the guys on this website.

[dx100uk]

Oh I absolutely do want to take "them" to court for PPI! In fact, I'm off to the court today to file the first claim with the exceptional help of a couple of the guys on this website.

 

good for you - go get 'em...

 

talking talking talking gets nowhere

 

fire a salvo across someone's bow, that'll blow the smokescreen away pretty quick!

 

10/10:lol:

 

dx

[MadKit]

Thanks DX! I'll be very interested in seeing what the reaction is, they've been ignoring requests to refund this for some time now and have not even cancelled the PPI even though they were asked to do this 3 times. Contador, I've cited the judicial review but detailed various other laws for other section of the particulars of claim.

 

[millymollymoo]

Thanks DX! I'll be very interested in seeing what the reaction is, they've been ignoring requests to refund this for some time now and have not even cancelled the PPI even though they were asked to do this 3 times. Contador, I've cited the judicial review but detailed various other laws for other section of the particulars of claim.

 

 

Sempra metals case I gather if claiming their compound rate ?

 

good luck

[caro]

No, you don't want to take anyone to court for PPI. You should complain and escalate it to the FOS should you need to.

 

The lender is indeed responsible for their products bur they aren't responsible for mis-selling it where they didn't sell it.

 

Most IFAs operate within 'networks' and I think I'm right in saying that complaints about individual IFAs are the responsibility of the network. Failing that then approach the FSCS http://www.fscs.org.uk/

 

What the FSA are saying that as far as the consumer is concerned the complaint should be dealt with by the broker and if the broker feels that the lender bears some liability then the broker may have have recourse in the courts with the lender, That process does not involve the consumer and is separate to the broker's liability to the consumer.

 

Trouble is FOS take forever and I've a funny feeling that they may not play ball over PPI claims that are over 6 years.

 

Given the judicial review, what reason would you give for NOT going to court. In most cases brokers haven't been involved. If the proper protocols are followed before going to court, the prospective defendant will have the opportunity to resolve the issue before it gets to court, or prove why they aren't the right organisation to sue.

 

No reason why people have to do things the way the FSA are saying if there are better and more timely alternatives that better serve the innocent victims of misselling and let them get their money back quicker.

[Fred_Funk]

Trouble is FOS take forever and I've a funny feeling that they may not play ball over PPI claims that are over 6 years.

 

What makes you say this? Surely, one of the principle motivations for the actions which prompted the judicial review was to make it easier for people to reclaim on policies dating from the pre-regulation era before January 2005?!

 

That said, I understand why court may be an attractive option to some who don't want to wait for the FOS to work through its almighty backlog.

[HSBCrusher]

Just speaking personally, I have never been a big fan of using the FOS.

 

option a) talk to the FOS, get batted around, wait ages and hopefully get some sort of result. Also, I agree with caro I dont think 6yr+ claims will do well with them.

option b) letter, LBA and then court.... well, you know the rest.

[Fred_Funk]

Also, I agree with caro I dont think 6yr+ claims will do well with them.

 

You may well be right but, for the uninitiated such as me, can you elaborate on why you think this. Thanks