BBA - v FSA - PPI Judicial Review

[caro]

Sorry, meant Caro not Nemo.

 

I'm not disputing that there's an argument for claiming compound interest in restitution - indeed I did so myself with my bank charges - and would agree that, should you elect to go down this route, you should do so on the basis of Sempra.

 

Nor am I arguing against going to court, especially if you want to avoid a ridiculously long wait, I'm merely saying that is seems to me Contador is correct and that if you do so you shouldn't rely on the principles outlined by the FSA and upheld in the Judicial Review as they aren't, it seems, actionable in court.

 

Fred_Funk

 

Contador seemed to be implying that FOS was the only way to claim which as we agree is not the case. Forgive me if I had the wrong impression here. I would say that the findings of the JR might well add weight to a court claim, but would agree should not be relied upon as any more than a supporting argument and documentation. My aim was to dispel the view that seemed to be coming from some posts on this thread that FOS is the only way ahead because of the JR, when clearly that is not so.

[igglepiglet]

I don't understand why posters are suggesting that the FOS doesn't award compound interest when its own guide to redress clearly says that it does.

 

The reconstruction of the credit-card account, to work out what the current balance would have been (where the account remains open) – or what the closing balance would have been (where the account has been cleared or closed) – if the consumer had made the same monthly payments but without PPI. This should be calculated by deducting the PPI premiums and the interest and charges that resulted from those premiums (including those arising because the ongoing monthly balance on the credit-card account was higher than it would have been, if the consumer had made the same payments to an account without PPI).

[Fred_Funk]

I don't understand why posters are suggesting that the FOS doesn't award compound interest when its own guide to redress clearly says that it does.

 

The FOS gives you back the interest you paid as a result of the mis-sold PPI - this, I think, is most often referred to as contractual interest - but doesn't award you compounded interest in restitution. The later is altogether different but can be claimed in court, on the basis of Sempra, and often amounts to considerable sums.

[igglepiglet]

The FOS gives you back the interest you paid as a result of the mis-sold PPI - this, I think, is most often referred to as contractual interest - but doesn't award you compounded interest in restitution. The later is altogether different but can be claimed in court, on the basis of Sempra, and often amounts to considerable sums.

 

But the interest added as a result of PPI is compound interest, same as with any other purchase you make with the card. So I don't understand the differentiation you're making. The key thing to remember is that your balance should be reconstructed as if the PPI were never added (but with the same monthly repayments).

[Fred_Funk]

But the interest added as a result of PPI is compound interest, same as with any other purchase you make with the card. So I don't understand the differentiation you're making. The key thing to remember is that your balance should be reconstructed as if the PPI were never added (but with the same monthly repayments).

 

The compound interest some people go after in restitution is equivalent to the interest the lender would have made by lending out the money you paid them at its normal rate [and is over and above the interest you're referring to].

 

For instance, I've just been looking at a PPI repayment of £25.94 I made on May 1, 2004. That repayment already accounts for the interest charged on the single-premium PPI. However, I might also look for compound interest in restitution, ie the money the lender could have earned by lending out my money from May 1, 2004, until today and that equates to an additional £101.09.

 

Am I making any sense?!

[igglepiglet]

Ah, I see. At present the FOS would award you 8% simple interest on that (and in the case of credit cards, on the adjusted balance if it ever became negative, i.e. in credit), but you want the banks to give you the interest they could have charged to other customers by lending them your money. I understand now.

 

But why stop there? Remember the banks can leverage up by something like 40x! ;-)

[Fred_Funk]

Ah, I see. At present the FOS would award you 8% simple interest on that (and in the case of credit cards, on the adjusted balance if it ever became negative, i.e. in credit), but you want the banks to give you the interest they could have charged to other customers by lending them your money. I understand now.

 

But why stop there? Remember the banks can leverage up by something like 40x! ;-)

 

You got it! Google 'Sempra' if you're interested in the rationale for such claims!

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?480-Case-law-on-Restitution

 

You can find Sempra v Inland Revenue in the CAG library under Case Law on Restitution .. linked above.

[bustthematrix]

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

[citizenB]

Now the banks have found another way to deny redress......

 

 

Tens of thousands of customers who have had complaints about payment protection insurance (PPI) rejected could be denied justice despite banks finally admitting to widespread mis‑selling.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1388147/Now-banks-exploit-new-payment-protection-loophole.html#ixzz1MgwX0IZu

[the_shadow]

No real Surprise tho is it... they were always going to try and wriggle out of going back over old claims and contacting people pro-actively....

 

 

Now wouldnt it be nice if the FSA issues a waiver of its normal rules on timescales of complaints for all PPI related issues, at least then if you'd had a claim rejected YOU could re-contact a bank/building society and re-complain.

[jj69]

Now the banks have found another way to deny redress......

 

 

Tens of thousands of customers who have had complaints about payment protection insurance (PPI) rejected could be denied justice despite banks finally admitting to widespread mis‑selling.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1388147/Now-banks-exploit-new-payment-protection-loophole.html#ixzz1MgwX0IZu

 

Great link !! Bloody typical scenario banks fail in court then go against the rulings to suit themselves ...probably explains why Barclays have not replied to the ' where's my PPI money ' letter !!This is really bad practice as the banks really could pull a fast one depending on your reasons for being mis-sold..you will have to make sure you have a really valid reason I bet

[bustthematrix]

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!!!

[bustthematrix]

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.

[jj69]

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.

 

I sadly have to agree, especially those people using claims companies, bank says to claims comp sorry this was rejected in xxxx, claims company cuts its losses and says to customer sorry no can do here's our bill thanks and see ya...

[cerberusalert]

I thought the ruling stated that the banks had to re-open all claims?

[caro]

Another reason to go to court. It doesn't matter what the banks and FOS have said in the past, it's what a judge says that counts.

[BankFodder]

So people still trust the banks to do the right thing and the regulatory authorities to do their job?

 

Bless.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?748-Banks-Exploit-Double-Jeopardy-Rules-To-Avoid-PPI-Refunds

[dpick]

Hum I always thought that double jeopardy had to do with a criminal offense, mind you I think the banks are still trying to shaft us.

 

dpick.

[caro]

Hum I always thought that double jeopardy had to do with a criminal offense, mind you I think the banks are still trying to shaft us.

 

dpick.

 

Of course they are and always will unless we take back control from them, whether it's one person at a time, or by changes in the way they're regulated.

[Scouserlad]

Hi

 

Following a call today with Lloyd's TSB Newport, still no go-ahead has been pass on to case managers. I was advised but can not quote to other members of Lloyd's tsb staff but it is the members of the board who have to give this go-ahead but they are still stalling on this.

 

Anybody have contact details for the board members ?

 

Thanks

[caro]

I wouldn't bother scouser. Just start court action. They can't stop that.

[Scouserlad]

How much would it cost to start the court action ?

[caro]

It depends how much the claim is for. I've linked court fees below which show MCOL is cheaper than claiming online, but you're very limited in what you can put on particulars of claim using MCOL so wouldn't recommend that.

 

If you're on certain benefits or low income you may be exempt from court fees, but if you do have to pay you can claim back your court fees too.

 

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex50_e.pdf

[bustthematrix]

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?