BBA - v FSA - PPI Judicial Review

[caro]

Trouble is buster there are different reasons for misselling so it depends on individual reasons for saying it was mis-sold. Have you got a thread on your PPI issues?

[rebel11]

Hi Bust

 

Here is an example, you could amend it, but make sure you read it over several times so that it applies to your claim:-

 

http://www.consumerwiki.co.uk/index.php/PPI:_Particulars_of_Claim

[bustthematrix]

Hi folks, no, no thread as I've not had a PPI reclaim to speak of yet. But we shall see, I may start one to assist a friend in the near future.

 

You're right Caro that the bases for the miss-selling is unique to the case at hand, I think though, a template that covered the majority of reasons would be helpful.

 

Reb, thanks for the link. I'll take a look when more able.

[Fred_Funk]

Hi Bust

 

Here is an example, you could amend it, but make sure you read it over several times so that it applies to your claim:-

 

http://www.consumerwiki.co.uk/index.php/PPI:_Particulars_of_Claim

 

I don't pretend to be any kind of expert but are all the points entirely relevant?!

 

Isn't it the case - contrary to popular belief - that while the Judicial Review upheld the FSA's principles with regard to the mis-selling of PPI, they're not enshrined in law.

 

That's to say, if you attempt to reclaim your PPI via the FOS then the ombudsman has been given the green light to apply its principles when reaching a decision. If, however, you chose to go to court you can't base your claim on those principles.

[bustthematrix]

Hi Fred_F

 

Have you had a good look at the ICOB rules? I understand that these are directly actionable in law. The way I see it (and would therefore argue it), the FSA principles and their endorsement within the Judicial Review gives the Principles at least persuasive authority in law. Both ICOB and the Principles have come from the same source (FSA), have similiar purpose and the JR mentions this. There is now an underlying recognition that providers aren't expected to simply fulfill the less strict standard (ICOB) whilst ignoring the Principles.

[Fred_Funk]

Hi Fred_F

 

Have you had a good look at the ICOB rules? I understand that these are directly actionable in law. The way I see it (and would therefore argue it), the FSA principles and their endorsement within the Judicial Review gives the Principles at least persuasive authority in law. Both ICOB and the Principles have come from the same source (FSA), have similiar purpose and the JR mentions this. There is now an underlying recognition that providers aren't expected to simply fulfill the less strict standard (ICOB) whilst ignoring the Principles.

 

Haven't, as yet, studied the ICOB rules in any detail - coz I'm not at that stage - but have done plenty of reading around the subject and, as you say, it seems these are what you must rely on if you proceed to court.

 

I'd agree that there is, '… now an underlying recognition that providers aren't expected to simply fulfill the less strict standard (ICOB) whilst ignoring the Principles' but have no idea whether this amounts to what you describe as 'persuasive authority in law'.

 

And therein lies my concern; it seems to me that lots of people think they can proceed to court, claiming compound interest [sempra], on the basis of the FSA's principles and the result of the Judicial Review. While I'm sure both are helpful, it seems to me it's nowhere near that straight-forward.

 

For example, from the Judicial Review judgment:

 

'Ms Sinclair gave illustrations in her Witness Statement of the regulatory gap........there is no specific ICOB rule which prohibits the selling of a PPI policy to someone who can never claim under it, even where the seller knows that to be the case. Such conduct would be covered by Principles 1, 3 and 6.'

 

As ever, interested in what everyone else thinks.

 

Fred_Funk

[bustthematrix]

Hi Fred

As I see it, the claiming of compound contractual interest (CCI) has little to do with the FSA or FOS per se (though the FOS do comment a bit about restitution). It is a basic legal principle that can be argued when money has been wrongfully extracted, as the Sempra case demonstrates. It is somewhat confusing to link it to the PPI Judicial Review in anyway. The JR concerns itself with the reasons for PPI refunds and the principles that apply etc.

 

It remains open to any claimant to seek to recover CCI on any capital amounts they have had to pay to a lender, as long as they are happy with the case law around doing so and that a higher claim amount (which claiming CCI produces) may spur the lender to fight their claim more assiduously. But Sempra is established precedent so people can and are using it and getting results.

[bustthematrix]

Hi Fred

As I see it, the claiming of compound contractual interest (CCI) has little to do with the FSA or FOS per se (though the FOS do comment a bit about restitution). It is a basic legal principle that can be argued when money has been wrongfully extracted, as the Sempra case demonstrates.

Sorry, I should add that this is only true IF you're not going through the FOS for your claim. If you are, and you wish to be awarded CCI in addition to capital and statutory interest, the FOS adjudicator would need to agree with that.