Every Single Day Banks Reject 1,500 Valid PPI Claims

Millions of customers are impatiently waiting to be compensated for PPI claims they have taken out. Many customers have already successfully filed claims against many of the banks, but have been waiting for their money for months. Other customers have had claims wrongly rejected by the banks. A recent study from the Financial Ombudsman Service found that more than 1,500 legitimate PPI claims are rejected every day.

FOS Burdened by Poor Claims Management

The banks are under a lot of pressure to reform their claims handling process. Customers must appeal to the Financial Ombudsman Service if they feel they have been wrongly rejected. The FOS has been receiving over 10,000 claims every week.

They reported that most of those claims were filed by people who had already had claims denied by the banks.  The FOS has upheld approximately 78% of the claims that have been filed in recent months. The FOS said that the banks’ failed claims management practices are creating a huge workload for it. It has been forced to double its staff to handle all the mis sold PPI claims that customers are appealing.

Reasons Claims Are Denied

The FOS has grown increasingly frustrated with the way the banks have managed their claims. They are working with the FCA and other financial regulators to understand the problems so that they can come up with a solution. Why has the claims management process atrophied so much in the last couple of years.

Lack of Training

One of the problems they face is that many of the claims handlers don’t appear to be well trained. The Financial Conduct Authority said that the banks will need to train their employees how to handle claims better in the future. They need to understand how to use a PPI calculator and know which claims need to be upheld.

Third Party Contractors

Many banks have outsourced their claims handling process to other companies. Many of the contractors they hired were intentionally denying claims that they should have upheld. The biggest case came to light when a Times reporter revealed a scandal involving Deloitte and Barclays.


Some experts allege that many banks have intentionally denied claims to save money. They are facing £25 billion in losses due to claims that have been filed in the past few years. They appear to deny many claims hoping that customers won’t appeal to the FOS.

Banks Pressured to Reform Claims Handling

The banks are under increased pressure to reform their claims management practices. The FOS and financial regulators said that there are several reasons the banks have done such a poor job managing claims over the last couple of years.

Personal Injury Claims and the Courts

Making a personal injury claim is your legal right if you have suffered an injury as a result of another party’s negligence. However, many people are reluctant to make their claim because there are a number of things about the idea of claiming that they find intimidating. One of these is the possibility of a court hearing.

Do I Need to go to Court for my Personal Injury Claim?

The short answer is that you probably don’t. In the majority of cases, a settlement is reached before things reach a stage where the claimant has to appear in person before the courts for a hearing. Indeed, you may not even need to meet with your solicitor in person, let alone attend a court hearing, as most personal injury solicitors are perfectly able and willing to handle a case effectively using only written correspondence and the phone to communicate with you.

Nonetheless, it is not guaranteed that any given accident compensation claim will be settled without the need for a court hearing. It is therefore best to keep in mind that a court hearing is a possibility when beginning a claim, though the possibility is small in many cases. Ultimately, the question of how likely a case is to reach the courts depends heavily on the individual circumstances. When establishing the facts of the case and whether the other party was truly negligent proves especially difficult, then a court hearing is more likely to be required before an appropriate settlement can be reached.

Going to Court

If your personal injury claim does reach the stage of a court hearing, there is no need to be intimidated or nervous. A court hearing is just another way for evidence to be gathered in order to assess your case. You will be informed in advance of the date and time of your hearing, and your solicitor will be able to help you with whatever preparation is necessary. It is also important to remember that, by the time things progress as far as a court hearing, your personal injury solicitor will have already assembled the facts and evidence of your case in great detail, so you will be in a strong position to make your case for the compensation you believe you are due.

Once the hearing is done, it is just a matter of waiting to be informed of the court’s judgement. When you are informed of the decision, you will be told not just whether your claim has been successful but also the amount you have been awarded if your claim has been upheld.

86 of UK’s Threatened Courts Will Close

It has now been confirmed that the vast majority of the courts named previously by the government on a list of those under threat will, in fact, be closed. Of the 91 courts on the list, the Ministry of Justice announced this month, only five will remain open.

The remaining 86 courts are to face closure. Of these, 64 are to undergo closure through the exact process outlined in last year’s consultation document, in which the list of threatened courts was first published. The remaining 22 are still to face closure, but with changes to the processes and schedules originally outlined in the consultation document.

One of the five courts to remain open will still be subject to a partial closure. The magistrates’ court at St Helens County Court will be closed, while the rest of the court will not. The courts in Bath, Carmarthen, Stockport, and West Cumbria, on the other hand, will remain fully open despite being named as candidates for closure in the original consultation.

The 86 courts will be closed at various times, with all of them ceasing to operate within the next two years. The government has published the schedule for all courts facing closure online.

The courts that have now been confirmed for closure represent around a fifth of all courts in England and Wales. The list includes various kinds of court including magistrates courts, county courts, tribunal centres and family courts, and covers locations around the country.

Shailesh Vara, the Justice Minister, maintains that the closure of these courts will not seriously hamper the UK justice system’s ability to provide “high-quality service” and “effective access to justice” to the public.

According to Vara, after the closures 97% of the UK public, when required to attend court, will be able to get there by car within one hour. 83% will be able to reach a tribunal within the same time frame. While he expressed sympathy for local communities with “strong allegiances to their local courts,” he said that the closures represented an important step towards the modernisation of the current justice system, which he said, “everybody accepts is unwieldy, inefficient, slow, expensive to maintain and unduly bureaucratic.”

Nonetheless, some are disappointed with the news that as few as five of the 91 threatened courts are to remain open. Previously, the Law Society made a case for keeping a significantly larger number of the courts in operation, saying that there was good cause to retain 59 of those on the list.

Jonathan Smithers, president of the Law Society said: “The majority of these closures will make it more difficult for a significant number of people to get to court, disproportionately affecting people living in rural areas, those with disabilities and lower income families.”

New Digital Court Concept Gets Further Backing

Fresh calls have been made for the introduction of a new, digital court to the UK. The Civil Justice Council has repeated calls for a purely online court to be introduced, able to handle claims with a value of up to £25,000.

Popular internet auction site eBay has been named as a role model of sorts for the new court. Whilst this suggestion may seem surprising on the face of it, eBay operates by providing a platform for independent sellers and private buyers to interact, and disputes between buyers and sellers which are, in a sense, independent from eBay as an entity are not uncommon. The company has implemented a quite rigorous multi-levelled dispute resolution process to help ensure such cases are resolved fairly. It is this aspect of eBay which has been suggested as a useful source of inspiration for a purely digital court.

This is the latest in a series of occasions on which the development of a digital court has been suggested or actively called for. However, the latest calls for the introduction of an online dispute resolution platform are particularly pertinent as they follow the confirmation that around a fifth of all the courts in England and Wales – 86 in total – are to be closed down over the next two years. This has led to concerns about public access to justice, and fears that many people – especially those who are disabled, on low incomes, or living in rural areas – will find it harder to reach physical courts. A digital court to handle financial claims with a value of under £25,000, it has been suggested, could be a way to bypass such problems in many cases and make it easier and more convenient for both individuals and businesses to access justice and uphold their rights through the courts.

The proposed online court would also, in most cases, allow proceedings to be effectively carried out without lawyers. This, it is argued, could also help make justice more accessible again in a post-legal-aid-cuts landscape. The Civil Justice Council has issued a set of proposals which could see such a system implemented within a two-year timeframe.

Under the latest proposals, the online court would offer a three-tiered dispute resolution process. Firstly, there would be an interactive information-gathering and evaluation process. Unless an agreement were quickly reached, this would be followed by communication, interaction, and negotiation – carried out wholly online – with the help of “facilitators.” If the matter can still not be settled, then a qualified judge would make a ruling, based entirely on submissions made electronically.

Watchdog Assesses CPS Efforts to Improve Magistrates Courts

Findings have been announced following a watchdog review of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and its role in improving the justice system through the transforming summary justice initiative. The Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate gave mixed opinions on the CPS’ contribution to the improvement of magistrates’ court operations, with the most significant criticism being that prosecutors were failing to properly review the cases and relevant case files ahead of many cases’ first court hearing.

The Inspectorate reached this conclusion following a review of the Crown Prosecution Service’s recent work to make changes to magistrates’ courts. Through the work in question, the CPS has been aiming to make significant improvements to the system of magistrates courts in England and Wales. This includes efforts to minimise wait times by reducing delays, and also to reduce the number of hearings that each individual case requires. Furthermore, there has also been a new requirement introduced, making it necessary for the CPS to review every case before it progresses to the courtroom for its first hearing.

In order to review these efforts, the CPS Inspectorate reviewed 271 files relating to relevant cases, as well as attending 19 sittings in magistrates courts for direct observation. There were many positives identified in the subsequent report, with the inspectorate judging that the CPS was making a positive contribution to efforts to improve the UK justice system and stating that the charging decisions made by the service were sound.

However, there are also criticisms made of the CPS, and the key one was prosecutors’ “failure to review cases for the first hearing in too many instances.” Overall, the watchdog found that over a third of all cases – 37.7% in total – showed no evidence that any review had been carried out ahead of the beginning of court hearings. “Both the quality and the timeliness of the initial review by the CPS needs to be improved,” the Inspectorate concluded.

This was not the only aspect of preparation for the first court hearing that the Inspectorate judged the CPS to be failing on. Following the review, the CPS was also criticised for not managing to “engage effectively” with legal professionals acting for the defence ahead of court hearings in a great many cases.

A spokesperson for he CPS welcomed the report’s recognition that the service was “making a positive early contribution” to efforts to reform the operation of magistrates courts, and said that steps were being taken to ensure that cases were properly reviewed before reaching the courtroom.

The spokesperson said: “We are putting in place measures to ensure we always record the review of our files.” She went on to explain that the service had “introduced an app for prosecutors which assists and prompts them to record a review electronically” and that sample checks of cases were also being carried out to ensure records are being properly made.