Freshfields' PPI judicial review rejected by court
The High Court has dismissed a judicial review launched by the British Bankers’ Association (BBA) against the FSA and Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) over the handling of payment protection insurance (PPI) claims.
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partners David Scott and Simon Orton instructed Blackstone Chambers’ David Pannick QC and Charles Flint QC to act for claimant BBA in its challenge to the financial regulators.
The BBA had sought to force the FSA and FOS to reverse their position on the handling of PPI complaints.
In December the regulator introduced new guidelines on how PPI products should be sold, stating specifically that consumers should be talked through the key points of the policy.
It said those terms should be applied retrospectively meaning that consumers who were missold the product under the December guidance could bring claims against the banks.
The FSA said it had received more than 1.5 million complaints about PPI since 2005. On average banks have rejected some 60 per cent of PPI claims brought against them, although the FOS has gone on to uphold some complaints.
The High Court decision will mean that the banks will have to comply with the FSA guidelines and deal with misselling complaints made against them.
FSA general counsel Andrew Whittaker welcomed the ruling. “This is a significant decision,” he said. “The High Court firmly rejected the BBA’s argument and gave a strong victory to the FSA, to FOS and to consumers.”
SNR Denton partner Richard Caird instructed Michael Brindle QC of Fountain Court, Monica Carss-Frisk QC of Blackstone Chambers and Richard Coleman and Jamie McClelland of Fountain Court for the FSA.
Russell-Cooke Solicitors partner John Gould instructed 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square’s Hodge Malek QC and James Strachan for the FOS.
Herbert Smith partner Andrew Lidbetter instructed Blackstone Chambers’ Michael Fordham QC and Paul Luckhurst to act for Nemo Personal Finance.
Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Thelawyermag.
Readers' comments (9)
Anthony Brennan | 20-Apr-2011 2:43 pm
We have dealt with clients in wheelchairs that have been sold sickness insurance that could never been claimed on due to obvious health issues. We have dealt with policies sold to pensioners, housewives and students who could never claim on loss of employment as they were never employed. We have dealt with Russian Builders, Indian Cooks and African Taxi Drivers who could hardly speak English and could never claim as they were self employed. We have dealt with Nurses working for the NHS, civil servants, policeman, firemen and armed forces personnel who could never claim on policies due to the fact that they were fully covered from their work sickness insurance.
The banks who sold these policies had a massive incentive to sell them due to the enormous commissions involved (usually 60% of the total cost of the policy). In addition on single premium loans they not only gained the loan commission they also lent the money to purchase the policy in the first place. So that on lending £5,000 to purchase a policy at say interest of 20% pa with 60% of the cost of the policy refunded as commission they bank effectively earned 50% interest on the net cost of the loan.
The banks have ignored their own regulators guidelines to refund this money. They have challenged the regulators instructions on best practice and lost in court and now there is no doubt they will appeal this judgement in the cynical knowledge that by delaying the verdict another 18 months they will save hundreds of millions of pounds in people giving up on their claim and the fact that they are able to destroy their financial records older than 6 years old thus preventing claims on their older policies
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20-Apr-2011 4:06 pm
Anthony, do you read the Daily Mail, per chance?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nic Eatch Director Assured Money Solutions Ltd | 20-Apr-2011 8:51 pm
I have read the judges findings cover to cover (boring but insightful) and applaud the fact that decency has prevailed. As the BBC's business editor reported http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/ in his blog today it would have been disastrous for consumers if the banks would have won. I see mis-selling everyday, I am the director of a claims management company and like Anthony we have some appalling principle and rule breaches. THIS IS NOT BANK CHARGES - there is no way the banks will get away with taking this to the supreme court , however you would not put anything past our "greedy bankers". What point are you making anonymous re the Daily Mail by the way please tell?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Apr-2011 3:06 am
The more they delay,the more they may pay interest on some cases and compensation to others this has cost some damages to their credit for the past years.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Apr-2011 11:54 am
CMCs are a load of croc - 25% of the redress for sending out a few letters. Consumers - take your cases to the FOS yourself and mis out these CMCs - they label banks theives - hipocracy at its best.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Apr-2011 9:31 am
I have been left in limbo with trying to progress two PPI claims but worse than that I think that the company acting on my behalf have mis-sold their service to me after taking money off me for this last October - do you knowledge of companies acting in this way. It seems that this (large) company who promise to handle your claim against the banks are also fraudulent!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Debbie | 24-Apr-2011 12:44 pm
As a Manager at one of the large Claims Management companies please be assured we do a lot more than send a few letters out, we work tirelessly on behalf of our client’s against Banks(some are better than others) who fight us every step of the way. We work on behalf of people who do not want to have to deal with the hassle, delays and uncooperative behaviour we deal with from most Banks on a daily basis.
We earn every penny we charge by fighting for our client’s rights, we are indignant on their behalf and will not stop until we get a fair outcome. Hopefully we can now start to build stronger relationships with the Banks and work together to resolve these complaints speedily and fairly Thank you.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-May-2011 11:20 am
Claims management companies are a necessary evil. The company that I work has seen many examples of banks refusing a claim to the consumer directly and spinning out the claim until the consumer gives up. They refuse to supply documents or respond to the FOS in an approprite way or within the correct timescales. They have been selling a worthless product for 20 years and still the consumer does not get a fair recovery. Interest recoverd against the banks should reflect the interest charged not a mere 8%.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-Jan-2012 6:52 pm
CMCs are taking almost 50% off any money refunded, Im doing it myself now its so easy and the FOS are really friendly and helpfull and free, dont get sucked in by highway robbers for a second time, DIY its easy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment