Jump to content



BBA - v FSA - PPI Judicial Review


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3480 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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?

 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

:-)

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Haha 1

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...