Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, I suppose you’re right. I’ll keep it general whilst still answering the questions. The retailer is a precious metals dealer based in London. The item I purchased was Gold. It was shipped within London.  
    • Well I think now you need to give us the information we are asking for so that we can properly advise you. You asked for general advice before – having given as general information. Now you want specific advice – in order to do this we need to have specific information
    • This is what I suspected. One thing I should say is that I paid via Bitcoin. With this in mind and the fact that I have waited a total of around 10 days now from the expected delivery date. What should be my next course of action here? Should I wait further or contact the retailer asking for a refund / replacement of items I purchased.
    • The retailer is immediately responsible. There is no need to wait for an investigation by the courier company
    • I’ve omitted these details for now as the investigation is ongoing. I was seeking more general advice as to if an item purchased online is not received, am I as a customer required to wait for the courier to pay up a claim or is that purely the retailers issue? Meaning the retailer should refund me or send me the items I ordered regardless.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

BBA - v FSA - PPI Judicial Review


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3535 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

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

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ! :x

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch 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.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

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

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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
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.

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

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

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Daisy

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

:)

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

HSBC WON three times!!!!! Read about my continuing battle (claim FOUR!) Link HERE

Capital One WON Link

HERE

GE capital (5 accounts) WON link HERE

Lloyds bank account WON second claim starting! link HERE

Budget insurance cough up WON link HERE

Principles WON link HERE

A&L (Mrs Crusher's account) claim link HERE

Barclays claim link HERE

 

Any advice given is on an informal basis only and without prejudice or liability. In in any doubt, consult a qualified lawyer.

IF YOU HAVE GOT YOUR MONEY BACK, PUT SOME BACK INTO THE SITE TO HELP KEEP IT OPEN!

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...