Legality of payment protection insurance compensation arrangements examined on judicial review

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to discuss R (on the application of British Bankers Association) v. Financial Services Authority and another (Queens Bench Division: Administrative Court: Mr Justice Ouseley). Date of Judgment: 20 April 2011.Design/methodology/approachThe paper outlines the facts surrounding the case and comments on the decision.FindingsThis is a lengthy judgment that is dense in closely reasoned interpretative analysis of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 schema for regulation of the conduct of retail financial business and attendant redress mechanisms.Originality/valueThis keenly awaited decision raises several issues of wider public interest about the design and operation of the regulatory environment for retail finance in the UK. In the context of the FSA's emphasis over the past few years of its “Treating Customers Fairly” programme of work the legality of the action taken by both FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to effect a broad measure and depth of consumer redress in respect of what they judged to be widespread incidence of inappropriate sales of payment protection insurance (PPI) by banks in particular came under intensive scrutiny from the Court in what is a fascinating judgment for regulatory lawyers.