Regulator-led Resolution in Mass Finance Mis-selling: Implication of the UK PPI Scandal
Author | Young Yoon Park |
Position | Attorney-at-Law (Korean Bar) practicing at Yulchon LLC. B.A./M.A. in Economics (Seoul N.U.), J.D. (magna cum laude, Yonsei), LL.M. (King's College London). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4443-1622. The author may be contacted at: yypark@yulchon.com / Address: Parnas Tower, 38th Floor, 521 Teheran-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06164 Korea. |
Pages | 321-336 |
Young Yoon Park
∗
regulator based on powers stipulated in Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. FCA
PPI holders and pay redress to them if mis-selling was found. The opt-out class action,
by assigning the investigation and assessment of individual aspects of the disputes
to the financial institutions concerned. This approach is equitable in that financial
institutions which are liable to the scandal bears the time and pecuniary cost instead of
relying on public resources of courts as in the litigation. The regulator-led resolution
characterized as mass victims with small damages.
Keywords
Payment Protection Insurance, Mis-selling, Suitability, Consumer
Redress Scheme, Class Action, Mass Torts
Regulator-led Resolution
in Mass Finance Mis-selling:
Implication of the UK
PPI Scandal
∗ Attorney-at-Law (Korean Bar) practicing at Yulchon LLC. B.A./M.A. in Economics (Seoul N.U.), J.D. (magna cum
laude, Yonsei), LL.M. (King’s College London). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4443-1622. The author may
be contacted at: yypark@yulchon.com / Address: Parnas Tower, 38th Floor, 521 Teheran-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul
06164 Korea. This paper was fully revised and updated version of the author’s thesis for master of laws degree titled,
“Applicability of Regulatory Intervention as Efficient Way of Collective Redress to Korea - Review on the UK PPI Case”
submitted to King’s College London (2019). All the websites cited in this article were last visited on November 15, 2019.
J. EAST ASIA & INT’L L. Vol. 12/No.2 (2019); 321-336
Publication type : Research Article
Section : Notes & Comments
DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.14330/jeail.2019.12.2.05
322 Young Yoon Park
1. Introduction
Protection Insurance (“PPI”
1
“
”
2
’
’
3
“”
4
’s
“”
’s
1 Fin. Conduct Auth., Consultation Paper 15/39: Rules and Guidance on Payment Protection Insurance Complaints,
2015, ¶ 1.23 (UK).
2 Brit. Bankers Ass’n, v. Fin. Serv. Auth. & Fin. Ombudsman Serv. [2011] EWHC 999 (Admin) 1.
3 Fin. Serv. Auth., Final Notice to Swinton Group, 2009, ¶ 2.6; Plevin v. Paragon Pers. Fin. Ltd. & Another [2012] EW
Misc. 24; Fin. Conduct Auth., Handbook Disp App., 2010, at 3.6.2 (UK).
4 Plevin, EW Misc 24; Fin. Conduct Auth., Policy Statement 17/03: Payment Protection Insurance Complaint: Feedback
on 16/20 and Final Rules and Guidance, 2017, ¶ 3.11 (UK).
To continue reading
Request your trial