Lloyds Using Loopholes to Cut Consumer PPI Refund Amounts

The PFCA, a trade body that represents claims management companies, accused Lloyds of “short-changing” consumers by exploiting a legal loophole that saved millions of pounds in redresses. 

Lloyds cites a regulatory provision called “alternative redress”, which allows them to assume the customers who were mis sold PPI had purchased a cheaper, regular premium PPI policy. Single premium PPIs cost more than regular premiums, which makes all the difference in the compensation consumers receive.

The PFCA said that despite Lloyds using the loophole, most consumers were satisfied with the PPI refund they receive.

PPI Expert Cliff D’Arcy said that Lloyds had saved more than £60 million in redresses the previous year. He said “Frankly, I’m amazed that this problem has existed throughout the last year and hasn’t emerged into the light.”

Some consumers who had received their PPI refund had revealed that the banks have treated the mis sold financial product into a regular-premium PPI policy. When referred to the Financial Ombudsman, consumers found that Lloyds owed them an additional £500-1,000.

The survey undertaken by the PFCA revealed that Lloyds had been exploiting the legal loophole since February 2013, with 25% of PPI refund offers from the bank using the regulatory provision.

D’Arcy described it as a “scandal coming out of a scandal.”

Should Laws Prioritize Lesser or Necessary Evils?

Ethical legal problems arise when two conflicting arguments appear in a certain case. One argument may be against the morals where the law is built and the other argument pertains to the right of the individual in terms of emotions, physical and means of survival. Abortion is one of these cases. In Spain, a proposed law for abortion had stirred public protests. It defies tradition, religion and the right to life, but it also violates the right to a safe decision of an individual already existing in the legal system.

If you think of it, public concern depends on what they define as lesser or necessary evils. A necessary evil is something that lessens the suffering of parties involved in a certain scenario. Euthanasia is also an ethical issue because medical professionals and hospitals swore themselves to save the lives of people, but if the victim asks to end their life, the lesser evil is to end the patient’s life, but is contrast to the medical responsibility a doctor has.

However, if country laws prioritize lesser or necessary evils, loopholes will exist everywhere. Every person could just state that a person declared a right to die even without the person actually saying it. It could be tools of murder hidden in laws for people in power. With a few interjections of laws, they can protect themselves by invoking these lesser evil or necessary evil situations.

 It is difficult to ascertain the level of objectivity and subjectivity laws should have to make a perfect legal system. But in some cases, the answer is very much obvious when to go for the lesser evil choice.

The Difficulty of Implementing the Copyright Infringement Law

The internet is the biggest avenue for media today because its networks extend all over the world, and easy-to-upload file formats that compress audio, videos and photos make it easier to share original content online. However, it also makes it easy to share someone’s original content online. Copyrights protect the artist, or at least it should. But no one could blame its lack of implementation in the modern world.

Copyright infringement is when a person, establishment or company makes use of any form of media produced by an artist or a recording company to promote any venture they have, even something as menial as uploading a song to set a mood to my personal blog. You will have to pay royalty fees to their record labels, which ensure the artist gets paid their share for being involved in your promotion.

While all this is good business, it does not bode well with modern ideology. Many competitors in the independent department, including games, are giving away their media for free. They do not talk business, but they talk about support. They ask for donations and consider their media as something that the world should only know, but they do not focus on profit.

This is a direct challenge to the recording industry, which focuses on ensuring they get all their profits by approaching listeners on a business-scale model. This challenges copyright laws as well because listeners will only respect these laws if they find the media compelling.

Only a new model of retailing media will be the best way to implement the copyright infringement law. I think maybe if record companies started adopting the models used by independent musicians, meaning they go against them on their own level, they can have a fighting chance.

UK Royal Marine Sentenced to Life Imprisonment for Murdering Insurgent

The death of a wounded Taliban insurgent at the hands of a UK Royal Marine sergeant during his overseas deployment had left the Marine with life imprisonment for his crime. Evidence against Seargeant Alexander Blackman was a video that showed him and four other marines debating whether to give the Taliban fighter medical care. Blackman was seen shooting the Taliban fighter.

Blackman’s identity was protected by privacy until the Court Martial Appeal Court lifted the anonymity order. According to Judge Advocate General Blackett said that war and the battlefield may not be the places for peace and humanitarian activities, but if the British Armed Forces do not comply with humanitarian law and the laws of armed conflict, they are on the same level as their enemies.

Alexander Blackman is the first individual to be convicted of a murder during overseas deployment since World War II. Blackman is eligible for parole after serving a minimum of 10 years imprisonment.

In the battlefield, government soldiers are expected to act under the jurisdiction of the rules of engagement.

This means to disarm or disable at all costs their enemy, but mercy and tolerance be shown during engagement. Mercy killings, executions and looting breaks the rules of engagement in the battlefield. 

Source

British Marine Charged with Murder During Military Skirmish

Legal experts are discussing the legal and moral issues behind the infamous verdict against an unnamed British marine who was convicted for murdering a Taliban fighter in Helmand in September 2011. This is the first UK case involving a serviceman convicted of murder in action.

Experts said that the convict was wrongly placed given that it did not happen in a civil situation, such as a homicide or anywhere a violent conflict cannot rise at any moment. They also said government-sanctioned killing covered the person killed by the marine because the Taliban is identified as the enemy.

Legal experts against the decision said that it was unfair to give such a verdict to the British marine given that everyone can react in the same manner as he did. Exhilaration and other psychological factors will affect the decision of any man in the battlefield, even if battle-hardened or not.

The British marine had an injured Jihadi along with two other soldiers. With cameras fixed on observation balloons, the three men pretend to give medical care to the Jihadi, then executed the man with a shot to the chest. The marine was aware of what he has done breaking the Geneva Convention to spare soldiers unable to fight, but it is highly possible that the shot to the chest was an act of mercy

Because of the “right to life” law, which also covers military action, the marine is given the sentence of murder. The right to life law discusses the importance of treating combatants with equal respect.

Experts said that with all the legalities coming into the British military, it is highly possible that legal paranoia and paralysis will make it less sufficient.

Why You’ll Need Help from a No Win No Fee Claims Expert

Insurance companies are gaining government favour and the government is criticising the UK’s compensation culture. These particular mindsets and criticism lay the ground for stricter rules in terms of claiming compensation. You will need help from a claims expert.

Claims experts have spent years in handling injury claims similar to yours. The advantage of working with them is that they have a “peg” case that they could use to resolve your claim. For example, if you had a car accident claim, they could find a car accident claim that was previously accomplished and give you a good estimate of the compensation you could get.

Their familiarity with laws in different risky industries make them an important asset. Surely, you could not state a section of law made by the legislation to justify that you have the right to claim compensation for a disease you contracted working at an employer’s assignment. Only a claims expert can.

Claims experts also ensure that you get a fair amount of compensation for any possible extraneous damages you might have. If you were emotionally and psychologically damaged during the ordeal, you could file a compensation claim for such.

All of these services from most claims experts are given under a no win no fee compensation claims agreement. Most claims companies also provide free counselling for prospective customers as well.

The Law Regarding “Cold Calls”

Telemarketing and “cold calling” could be irritating, but sometimes, they open up new opportunities for you and the company that’s calling you. Cold calls are definitely nuisances if the callers reach you during the most inconvenient times of the day, including while you are sleeping or at the after-hours of your work. Here are the rights you have against cold calling companies.

1.    8 to 9

Cold callers could only call you at home from 8am to 9pm. If they go out of bounds, you could file a legal challenge for nuisance. However, if you are already working with the company calling you as a customer or benefactor, calls out of these hours are not considered nuisances, not unless they have a nature that gives them such.

2.    Identification

Cold callers must tell you who they are and why they are calling you. They must identify themselves properly  and give you information about their company’s address, telephone number and the purpose of their call.

3.    Restricted List

All companies who use telemarketing or cold calls are required to have a “do not call” list. If you opt to be put in this list, the company must oblige to do so, or you could complain to the company’s regulators or legally challenge them.

4.    Truth

Cold callers must tell you the truth and if they lie about their services or certain aspects of the product or investment products they are giving you, you could legally challenge them.