26 Feb 2015

A question about : PPI news thread

Please feel free to post up any news updates in regards of Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) in this thread, if any updates, such as from the Media, Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), FSA and so on, where sometimes they have updates on their own websites.

Thank you. title=Wink

Best answers:

  • Barclays Challenges Antitrust Agency’s Credit Insurance Ruling:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=ab3KkHHtpwr8
    Sept. 7 (Bloomberg) --
    Barclays Plc, the U.K.’s second- largest bank, told a London court that an antitrust regulator’s ban on the sale of payment insurance in conjunction with credit products doesn’t benefit consumers.
    Barclays is challenging the findings of a 23-month investigation by Britain’s Competition Commission on payment- protection insurance, or PPI. The commission said the combined sales of the products resulted in higher prices and less choice for consumers.
    The commission’s ban “would not provide the level of benefit to consumers to outweigh the cost of introducing the remedies,” Thomas Sharpe, a lawyer for Barclays, said at a hearing at the Competition Appeals Tribunal in London today.
    Barclays appealed the ruling in April, challenging the commission’s decision to ban PPI from being sold at the credit point-of-sale, and its scope of the market definition. Barclays isn’t challenging the whole of the commission’s report. It’s asking the tribunal to make the commission reconsider the ban and pay its costs.
    PPI is sold to cover payments on loans and mortgages in case of sickness or unemployment. About 95 percent of PPI sold in the U.K. is for credit cards, personal finance and mortgages, according to the commission. The product has come under scrutiny from regulators including the Financial Services Authority, which decided in February to ban so-called single-premium PPI, when the repayments on the credit and the insurance premiums are shown as one sum.
  • Barclays Bank Challenges PPI Ban:
    https://financialadvice.co.uk/news/4/...s-PPI-ban.html
    Monday 7th September 2009
    It has been revealed that Barclays bank, along with Lloyds bank, is set to challenge the UK government's controversial decision to ban the sale of payment protection insurance when credit arrangements are agreed. The ban, which will come into force in October 2010, will see a cooling off period of seven days before any credit provider can approach a customer regarding the sale of payment protection insurance.
    At the moment credit providers are able to sell payment protection insurance at the point at which a credit agreement is signed, which many believe has reduced competition in the marketplace. However, Barclays bank is challenging two particular elements of the competition commission's report i.e. the size of the market and the evidence provided regarding competition issues. In a bizarre turnabout, Barclays bank will be supported by 43% UK government owned Lloyds bank which is something of an embarrassment for the UK government.
    Payment protection insurance has long been the bane of the consumer protection sector with particular accusations regarding the price of those packages offered at source, as well as the necessity for customers to sign up to them. It will be interesting to see how the Barclays bank court case develops because this is a significant stumbling block for the banking sector and a potential crossroads for the UK government. Who will win the day?
  • Barclays challenges payment protection insurance ban:
    https://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b121c31a-9...44feabdc0.html
    Published: September 7 2009 18:00 | Last updated: September 7 2009 18:00
    Barclays began a legal challenge on Monday against a decision by the Competition Commission to ban the sale of controversial payment protection insurance alongside credit cards and loans.
    In January the Commission decided to ban the sale of the insurance alongside the sale of financial products from October 2010, with providers instead having to wait for seven days before they can contact customers to sell them the cover.
    Competition Commission pursues PPI reforms - Jul-0
    Payment protection complaints triple - May-17
    FSA steps up campaign on PPI products - Feb-24
    The move is one of a number of measures which will be introduced next year in a bid to increase competition in the market, alongside changes to make it easier for people to shop around for the cover and to change providers.
    Payment protection insurance (PPI) covers loan repayments if the holder is unable to work due to an accident or illness or if they lose their job.
    At the time of the decision the proposals drew scorn from several banks and on Monday Barclays launched a legal challenge. It is arguing against the point of sale ban on the grounds that it is not justified by the evidence collected.
    A spokesperson for Barclays said: ”The Barclays appeal does not challenge the whole report but is targeted specifically against two points. The main area of concern is the point of sale ban which, it is felt, is not justified by the evidence that has been provided.
    “However Barclays will continue working on the implementation of all of the remedies contained in the Competition Commission’s report as they are applicable.”
    Barclays is being supported by Lloyds Banking Group, in which the Government holds a 43 per cent stake, and Shop Direct Group Financial Services.
    Consumer groups came out in support of the Competition Commission’s ban of PPI , however, and said it should be upheld. Peter Vicary-Smith, chief executive of Which?, the consumer Watchdog said: “PPI has been widely discredited, so it’s important that it’s sold separately from other financial products to help consumers make informed choices about how best to protect their finances.”
    “Rather than appealing [against] the Competition Commission’s decision, Barclays should concentrate its efforts on developing protection products that offer better cover and value for money to its customers,” he continued.
    Much of the contention over PPIs comes from the methods that companys use to attract customers. The “point of sale” biased works against consumers who are often charged high premiums on the insurance, as they are unaware that they could buy from other providers.
    Lucy Widenka, campaigns project manager at Which? cites the case of Alliance and Leicester, the bank, who were fined Ј7m by the FSA for using misleading and aggressive telephone sales techniques, which led to consumers accepting the policy.
    As of 2007, the value of the PPI market was worth Ј4bn with 12m policies having already taken place this year.
  • Like the above posts:
    Barclays starts appeal against PPI insurance ban:
    https://in.reuters.com/article/bankin...35213120090907
    Barclays begins appeal against insurance sale ban
    * Lloyds Banking Group, Shop Direct back appeal
    * Judgement expected towards end of year
    LONDON, Sept 7 (Reuters) - Britain's Barclays (BARC.L: Quote, Profile, Research) has begun a challenge to the British competition watchdog's planned ban on the sale of payment protection insurance (PPI) alongside credit cards, loans and mortgages, the bank said on Monday.
    Barclays, whose appeal is being supported by rival Lloyds Banking Group (LLOY.L: Quote, Profile, Research), said in April it would challenge the legality of the Competition Commission's plans to clamp down on PPI, taking its case to the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
    PPI has long been a problematic product for consumer bodies, who have argued companies get away with charging high prices because they face little competition. The Competition Commission said last summer that Britons are being overcharged by 1.4 billion pounds ($2.30 billion) a year in PPI sales.
    Barclays plans to oppose the Commission's decision, effective from October next year, to force companies to wait seven days to sell PPI to any customer who takes out a credit agreement.
    The vast majority of 12 million PPI policies in Britain are sold at the same time as a mortgage, credit card or loan.
    "The main area of concern is the point of sale ban which, it is felt, is not justified by the evidence that has been provided," a spokeswoman for the bank said.
    "Additionally, the scope of the market definition set by the Competition Commission is being challenged."
    Lloyds said in a separate statement on Monday that it believes consumers will be disadvantaged by a ban, warning it "could potentially leave thousands of customers exposed at a time when protection has never been more important".
    PPI covers repayments on credit products if the borrower is unable to make payments due to accident, sickness, unemployment or death. Banks say they have seen a significant increase in unemployment claims on PPI policies in recent months.
    Barclays, which does not publish specific revenue and profit data for its PPI products, said PPI is a revenue stream but not a significant one for the group.
    The tribunal said the appeal is set to last four days -- with a possible additional fifth day -- though a judgement could take two to three months, with a ruling expected in December.
    The Competition Commission has said it is pressing ahead with its PPI plans, pending the outcome of Barclays' appeal.
    Barclays' appeal is backed by Lloyds, Britain's largest retail bank, but also by Shop Direct Group Financial Services, the UK's main provider of retail PPI, a small slice of the market which relates to home shopping.
    The banks' challenge will be opposed by the Competition Commission and the Financial Services Authority.
  • This is from Feb 2009 media news, but useful to newbies.
    https://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009...ks-mis-selling
    Banks fobbing off PPI mis-selling complaints with 'goodwill' payments
    Watchdog issues alert to customers over low settlement offers.
    Customers who reclaim mis-sold loan insurance from banks and other lenders are being warned not to accept "gesture" payments worth a fraction of their potential payout.
    Nine out of 10 payment protection insurance (PPI) mis-selling claims rejected by lenders are now being upheld by consumer watchdog the Financial Ombudsman Service, up from a historical level of 40%. It says this is because borrowers have been "fobbed off" with less than they are entitled to.
    The problem has become so acute officials at the FOS and City regulator the Financial Services Authority (FSA) are working together to resolve it.
    The FOS estimates that, by the end of next month, it will have received a record 25,000 complaints about the mis-selling of PPI. These controversial policies, often expensive and designed to pay out to cover personal loans or credit card payments if you fall ill, suffer an accident or lose your job, have been dragged into the spotlight after customers found they did not qualify for a claim or did not realise they had been mis-sold the policies.
    How to resolve the issue is becoming a major problem for the watchdog and regulator since the banking industry, largely responsible for the millions of sold policies, is repeatedly failing to appropriately process the complaints, a spokesman for the FOS says.
    "Our concern is that lenders across the board simply aren't learning and are making the same mistakes," he says. "The real worry is that those individuals mis-sold policies who don't realise they can use the FOS will be easily fobbed off with the lower sum. "
    Claims company Brunel Franklin says it has noticed an emerging pattern of "goodwill" payments to complainants by RBS, the bank part-owned by the government and bailed out by taxpayers' cash, designed to throw customers off the scent of a bigger payout. Each RBS payment is set at Ј750, often much less than the amount owed, says Sally Bowyer, managing director of BrunelFranklin.com.
    "The customer often seems to be fobbed off with around Ј750 as a gesture of goodwill, when the average PPI claim we handle is around Ј2,200. If RBS is trying to minimise claims to around Ј750, it may be in a planned effort to reduce its projected compensation payouts by up to two-thirds."
    A NatWest/RBS spokeswoman said: "We are satisfied that our complaints-handling procedures are fair, that every case is considered on its own individual merits, and that the decisions reached are reasonable, based on the evidence available. There is no obligation for our customers to accept our settlement offer. Any customer whose complaint is rejected by RBS or NatWest is always notified of their right to refer the case to the Financial Ombudsman Service." FSA rules on complaint handling suggest lenders should effectively learn from the type of complaints heading their way, understand their nature and origin, and sort them.
    Issuing a routine goodwill gesture seems to go against this ethos.
    Plenty of lenders have been penalised for poor handling of PPI sales. Last October, Alliance & Leicester was fined Ј7m by the FSA for serious failings in its sales procedures. Others including Liverpool Victoria Banking services, GE Capital Bank and HFC Bank have also been forced to pay compensation.
    The Competition Commission last month announced the sale of PPI alongside loans and credit cards would be banned in 2010 - lenders will have to wait seven days before they can get in touch with a customer to subsequently offer them the insurance.
  • https://www.webpage2day.com/2009/09/1...nts-about-ppi/
    Financial Services Authority (FSA) Comments About PPI
    September 11th, 2009
    In spite of being an ordinary or an expensive electronic appliance, Payment Protection Insurance or PPI is nowadays accessible for more or less every electronic item. The application of PPI for each electronic item has come up with many problems for the consumers. Undoubtedly, it was intended to help the clients to protect them from a financial crisis in case of any urgent situation; many people find it to be counterproductive and overbearing in most of the instances. That’s the time when Financial Services Authority or FSA takes over to help consumers.
    FSA is the regulator of all financial institutions in the United Kingdom. Given this supervisory role, FSA has to deal with a number of cases where people lodge complaints about PPI. The usual complaint would be related to a non-payment of PPI dues or the failure of PPI to help a customer in avoiding bankruptcy, among other things.
    FSA keeps an eye on the malpractices on behalf of the PPI sector and it has launched several directives in order to deal with the issue. As mentioned previously, traders attract consumers towards PPI and they accept to obtain a PPI for the flexibility of their payment plans.
    When the time comes to refund their dues, as mentioned in the payment plan and they want to avail PPI, consumers find it to be non-applicable or with some severe legal and technological measures. They find it inapplicable and not only this, in any urgent situation, the PPI found to be useless instead of helping out a client in trouble.
    FSA discourages the use of PPI for simple electronic goods. A widespread practice had been to offer durable goods purchasers with a PPI. Poor customers had no clue about history of malfunctioning of PPI. However, when these clients came to know about this trouble, they had no further option but to speak to FSA about this.
    FSA has also introduced new terms and conditions in the PPI policy. Prior to the implication of these new terms, companies were unwilling to reimburse the funds and lots even rejected to lend a hand to under the weather customers. Now they are forced by law in order to pay back every single penny to the affected consumers.
    The apex regulator has been working hard in order to increase consumer’s awareness about the advantages and disadvantages of PPI clauses. This is not all, but they have already initiated crackdowns on companies with previous doubtful PPI applications. Some of the companies with poor PPI practices have already been shut down, where as others have corrected their PPI costs and measures.
    According to some reports, FSA has plans to put a ban on PPI. Some banks have stopped their PPI programs and chances are bright that they will completely stop using PPI. Since PPI has failed to prove its effectiveness, FSA may decide to impose a ban on PPI permanently.
  • https://www.myfinances.co.uk/news/ins...s-$1327343.htm
    PPI: Over 90% chance of complaint success
    Wednesday, 16 Sep 2009 07:01
    Complaints data released by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) show high levels of payment protection insurance (PPI) complaints are found in favour of consumers.
    The FOS now sees around 750 PPI complaint cases submitted each week – with 95 per cent covering mis-selling.
    Some 27 per cent of all complaints now stem from PPI and 56 per cent of all insurance complaints.
    And consumers taking their cases are finding high levels of success.
    Some 99 per cent of insurance cases against Barclay's Firstplus, MBNA Europe, Lloyds' Black Horse, and Egg were found in favour of the consumer.
    Ninety-eight per cent of complaints against Northern Rock, Lloyds TSB, and Capital One covering 'general insurance' which includes PPI resulted in victories for consumers.
    Other major providers losing over 90 per cent of cases included Tesco, the Cooperative Bank, HFC Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, Loans.co.uk and Barclays.
    PPI was often sold alongside loans and credit cards – before moves were made by the Competition Commission to tighten rules on the sale of the insurance – to provide cover for borrowers if they are unable to repay loans.
    However, high levels of PPI mis-selling where it was not explained the insurance was optional or where people who could not make claims because of existing medical conditions or being self-employed have led to thousands of people to reclaim premiums.
    Claims should first be sent to the lender – which has eight weeks to deal with the complaint – before it is passed to the FOS.
    Claims management firms have been blamed for increasing the levels of cases, taking a share of a payout, but people mis-sold PPI can make their own claims for free directly to the FOS.
    The high levels of claims going to the ombudsman and the very high levels of claims being found in favour of borrowers suggest firms are not dealing fully with complaints.
    A spokesperson for Egg – which was fined Ј721,000 by the FSA for PPI mis-selling last year - said: "We are reviewing the way we deal with PPI complaints and working with the Financial Ombudsman closely."
    A Barclays spokesperson pointed out the FOS data included PPI within general insurance and not broken down. However, this would suggest wider problems over the handling of insurance complaints other than PPI.
    "We realise things can sometimes go wrong, which is why we have dedicated teams in place to identify and fix problems as quickly and efficiently as possible," she said.
    "We make sure our customers are aware of the Financial Ombudsman Service and encourage customers to contact the FOS if they want an independent view."
    She added less than one per cent of Barclays' 22 million customers ever complain and in most cases the issue is dealt with without having to go to the ombudsman.
    A Lloyds TSB spokesperson added the "vast majority" of its PPI customers were satisfied with the cover their policies.
    "The increasing volume of unemployment claims we have seen from customers clearly demonstrates that PPI is a product of real value, offering peace of mind and protection for consumers if their circumstances change and they become unexpectedly sick or unemployed," she concluded.
  • Finance News UK consumers have no confidence in the banking regulatory system:
    https://www.in2town.co.uk/Finance/Fin...m/menu-id-4990
    Survey reveals need for more coordination amongst financial regulatory bodies in protecting consumer interests
    As banks announce the return of significant profits and the controversial bonus culture, new research by PortalClaims.com has found consumer confidence with financial regulators is at an all time low. Two-thirds of UK consumers harbour doubts about the ability of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to protect their interests and effectively monitor and regulate the banks in regards to Payment Protection Insurance (PPI).
    The PPI industry, believed to be worth Ј3.8 billion to the banks, has come under fire in recent years with up to two million people having paid out for PPI despite it being an inappropriate product for them. Of the 5,000 people questioned by PortalClaims.com, the online company founded to help customers who have been wrongly sold financial products, such as PPI, over 70 per cent of the UK population are at least doubtful of the FSA’s or FOS’ effectiveness in regulating their industry, with 32 per cent having no confidence and at all.
    Tim Moore, Managing Director, PortalClaims.com comments: “We need a regulatory system that clearly represents the interests of the consumer. On one hand the FSA’s job is to make sure the banks have enough cash reserves to operate. On the other it has to make sure that the banks treat customers fairly when they complain about PPI which means paying out large sums in compensation. The FSA is clearly conflicted in its duty to honour consumer interests.
    “As a result, some banks are getting away with avoiding their responsibility to treat customers fairly. Barclays is a great example of this. It has failed to respond to 92 per cent of PPI complaints submitted via PortalClaims.com and this has been going on for at least eight months now! Although the FSA is aware of this situation it seems to be turning a blind eye as little or no action has been taken.”
    The research also uncovered over a third (38 per cent) of consumers remain unaware that most PPI is mis-sold.
    Moore continues: “These figures underline that neither the FSA nor the FOS are doing enough to effectively inform consumers of their rights or protecting those rights in the wake of the widespread mis-selling of PPI.”
  • There's no point naming and shaming the banks. They have no shame
    Naming and shaming bad banks will never work. What we need is tougher regulation:
    https://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog...s-fos-barclays
    Today: Barclays is in the dog house. The Financial Ombudsman Service reports that it's Britain's worst bank for complaints. Tomorrow: it won't matter one jot.
    How many of us remember the fines meted out by regulators to HSBC (Ј3m), Egg (Ј700,000), Alliance & Leicester (Ј7m), Norwich Union (Ј1.26m) or Nationwide (Ј980,000)? Er ... no one.
    Barclays has something like 22 million customers, but the number it will lose as a result of today's reports will probably be fewer than the number of its customers who will die today.
    Yes, of course the FOS should publish the names of the financial institutions that cause most grief to the public. But don't expect a bank to change its behaviour just because it has a messy day of press coverage. No bank chief executive ever lost a bonus because his scores on PressWatch fell.
    Remember Foxtons? The London estate agency was the target of a BBC fly-on-the-wall investigation that appeared to shred its reputation. Afterwards, its business levels actually rose.
    The thrust of consumer regulation in financial services over the past two years has been something called "Treating Customers Fairly". It's a worthy attempt to raise standards, but the reality is that it will probably turn into another box-ticking exercise that makes little substantive difference to the experience of customers (with the costs of this exercise passed on to, you guessed it, the customer).
    What two decades of financial regulation – from Fimbra to Lautro to SIB and the much derided FSA – has taught us is that regulating the sales process, providing warnings and information to customers, and imposing fines where appropriate have not worked. The alternative, which the financial services industry has fought tooth and nail against for years, is direct product and price regulation.
    The banks would not have been able to miss-sell endowments, PPI, 125% mortgages, 59% APR credit cards, self-cert loans etc (sadly the list goes on and on) if the regulator had stepped in early and said they were against the public interest. Instead, regulators and ombusdmen have hidden behind caveat emptor (plus reams of risk warnings).
    The banks can't be shamed into action. Instead they will have to be kicked.
  • Millions make finance complaints
    https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8235643.stm
    More than nine million individual complaints were made to firms in the financial services industry in the 2006-2008 period, figures have shown. Banking and loans accounted for more than half the formal complaints made to financial companies in that period.
    The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has published the complaints figures for the first time.
    During the second half of 2008, 40% were being settled in the customers' favour.
    The figures have been driven by huge numbers of complaints about bank overdraft charges, and the mis-selling of payment protection insurance and mortgage endowments.
    "Publishing this information will mean that consumers and firms can now see how many complaints the industry receives and how it deals with them," said FSA director Dan Waters.
    Individual companies will start to publish their own complaints data from July 2010.
    'Unhappy customers'
    The total number of complaints rose from 2,727,000 in 2006 to 3,411,000 in 2007 before dropping back last year to 2,903,000.
    Financial firms simply aren't treating consumers well enough
    Which?
    There would have been more but for the fact that the FSA told regulated firms in the middle of 2007 they they did not have to include new complaints about charges for unauthorised overdrafts levied by banks and building societies.
    More than 1.2 million of these complaints have since been "parked" until the issue is settled by the courts.
    "It's a poor reflection on the industry that there are so many unhappy customers out there," said Which? personal finance campaigner Phil Jones.
    "Financial firms simply aren't treating consumers well enough and things must change if the industry is to rebuild its reputation," he added.
    Current accounts
    The FSA's figures were dominated by complaints about current accounts, especially by demands for the return of overdraft fees, which reached 3,513,000 over the three-year period.
    Put in context, the proportion of reportable complaints is still very small at 3.5 per thousand products held
    British Bankers' Association
    "The spike in the total number of complaints in the first half of 2007 is the result of a large increase in complaints about overcharging and poor customer service in relation to banking and loans products at that time," said the FSA.
    There were 908,000 complaints about the mis-selling of mortgage endowments during the period, although their number tailed off dramatically during the three years.
    Complaints about credit cards came a close third at 745,000.
    But a surge in complaints about payment protection insurance (PPI) saw the number of complaints about general insurance and "pure protection" policies double, from 62,000 to 127,000, between the first half of 2006 and the second half of 2008.
    Unhelpful
    In April this year, the Financial Services Ombudsman (FOS), which deals with complaints that firms cannot settle themselves, accused many firms of being deliberately unhelpful.
    However, a spokeswoman for the British Bankers' Association welcomed the publication of the data, saying that the vast majority of bank customers had "no problems" with their accounts or bank services.
    "Millions of transactions for millions of customers go through the banking system every day," she said.
    "Put in context, the proportion of reportable complaints is still very small at 3.5 per thousand products held," she added.
    The vast majority of industry complaints were settled within eight weeks with, by the end of last year, just 10% taking longer to deal with.
    Last year, the firms most likely to admit making a mistake were building societies, who settled 59% of complaints in their customers' favour.
    Simon Morris, of City law firm CMS Cameron McKenna, was more critical of the FSA's publication of the data.
    "Presenting crude statistics about complaints that firms receive provides no useful information to help investors make important decisions," he said.
    "Instead it creates an alarming and inaccurate impression that firms are not to be trusted. It is irresponsible for the FSA to be undermining consumer confidence in such as insidious manner."
  • Just a bit of news, don't know how true it is.
    I phoned FOS today chasing the two complaints I have with Ocean Finance.
    I was told it had not yet been passed to an adjudicator..... but they had taken on more staff to cope with work loads so would not be that long.
    Hope the new staff know what they are doing or they could do more harm than good.
  • High Street banks have been named and shamed for their appalling customer service in a new report by the independent Financial Ombudsman.
    Banks were revealed as being far worse than any other financial institution, with the Ombudsman upholding nearly twice as many complaints against them than previously. Almost six out of every ten complaints about current and savings accounts, mortgages, loans, credit cards, insurance and investment are being resolved in favour of the consumer, the new figures show.
    But in previous years just a third were being found for the consumer.
    All of these people will have first complained to their bank but either had their complaint rejected or were offered inappropriate compensation.
    For example, some 71 per cent of Abbey customers who first had a complaint about a current account or loan rejected by the bank later had it upheld by the Ombudsman. A whopping 87 per cent of those who had a
    complaint rejected by credit card giant Capital One later had it upheld.
    The Ombudsman figures highlight Britain's biggest banks as by far the worst offenders. In total there were 69,841 complaints in the first six months of this year. The whole of Lloyds Banking Group received a total of 13,760 complaints, of which 6,947 were for Lloyds TSB, 5,804 were for Halifax/Bank of Scotland and the rest for Black Horse Finance.
    Barclays received 8,283, Abbey and Alliance & Leicester combined received 4,279, Natwest and Royal Bank of Scotland had 4,191. Marc Gander, from the campaigning Consumer Action Group, says: 'These complaints should never have made it as far as the Ombudsman in the first place. 'It just shows that you should not accept a decision from a bank if it rejects your complaint. You have to take it further because many are just being rejected as out of hand.
    'Banks seem to be using the Ombudsman as a way of testing the resolve of consumers to see if they really are serious about their complaint.'
    Banks argue that these complaints do not reflect the size of their businesses, and are relatively few compared with the number of products they sell.
    However, the Ombudsman statistics also reveal the numbers that are found in favour of consumers. In this period banks were receiving thousands of complaints about payment protection insurance - a policy sold with loans and credit cards which was supposed to cover your repayments if you stopped work.
    But the majority of policies were missold. Firms which sold PPI have a particularly high percentage of Ombudsman claims found in favour of the consumer. For example, in 99pc of general insurance claims (of which the majority will be PPI) made against Egg, the Ombudsman found against it.
    With Lloyds TSB this figure was 98 per cent, while Barclays, loans. co.uk, MBNA, Northern Rock, Nemo Personal Finance, Tesco, the Co-op, RBS and Welcome Financial Services all had more than 90 per cent.
    In other areas banks are also having more cases found against them. On current accounts and credit all the major banks have more than 50 per cent of cases upheld.
    Credit card firm American Express had 64 per cent of complaints found in favour of the consumer by the Ombudsman. Across all firms the average number of complaints upheld is 59 per cent. Six in ten credit and current account cases are upheld, four in ten separately for mortgages and investments, seven in ten general insurance (which includes PPI), and just three in ten on life insurance and pensions.
    A spokesman for the Ombudsman says: 'It's all to do with the way complaints are handled. If a complaint comes to us from a consumer and we think the compensation offered is fair then that does not count as being upheld.
    'We only uphold a case if we believe that the complaint has not been handled fairly or if the compensation or redress is not appropriate and we have had to change the outcome.'
    Insurance companies fared better. The number of complaints they received from customers was in the hundreds, while the percentage found in favour of the consumer was also far lower than the average.
    • If you have a complaint about a financial company you will first have to take it up with them. If you are unhappy with the result you can complain to the Ombudsman call: 0845 080 1800, email complaint. info@financial-ombudsman.org.uk or write to The Financial Ombudsman Service, South Quay Plaza, 183 Marsh Wall, London E14 9SR.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/art...reetbanks.html
  • Missed your post on here earlier Marshallka, cheers.
  • PPI still mis-sold, says Which?
    https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7606249.stm
    This is older news.
    Many people are still being misled into buying payment protection insurance (PPI) to cover their credit card payments, Which? claims.
    A survey for the consumers' association suggests that nearly 10 million people have a PPI policy with their cards.
    But 13% - 1.3 million - bought it under the mistaken belief it was compulsory or would improve their chances of having their card application approved.
    Which? said people were wasting their money buying any form of PPI policy.
    "Credit card PPI is a modern day snake oil - it's a useless product, expensive and poorly designed," said Doug Taylor of Which?
    "In this time of economic uncertainty, people are effectively throwing away Ј970 million each year, when they should be encouraged to seek independent financial advice about protecting their finances as a whole," he added.
    This was rejected by the British Bankers Association (BBA), who said the insurance was a valuable "plan B".
    "Taking out PPI is not a condition for agreeing to provide the borrowing facility and people are free to shop around if they want to," a BBA spokesperson said.
    "Last year, a mystery shopping exercise carried out by the FSA showed improvements in staff making it clear to customers that cover is optional and new rules which came into force in July tighten the PPI regime even further," the spokesperson added.
    PPI is designed to ensure that people can still repay their loans, such as credit card payments or mortgages, if they fall ill or become unemployed.
    Criticism
    Consumer bodies such as Which? and Citizens Advice have long campaigned against the selling of PPI, describing it as little more than a protection racket run by the banks to boost their profits.
    In June this year the Competition Commission calculated that customers were being overcharged for the insurance policies each year because of a lack of competition at the point of sale.
    Meanwhile the main financial regulator, the Financial Services Authority (FSA), has fined 11 financial organisations in the past two years for mis-selling the insurance.
    The most high-profile example was that of the Liverpool Victoria friendly society - now called LV - which was fined Ј840,000 earlier this year.
    Its staff had tagged on the cost of PPI insurance to the quotes it gave to 14,500 customers who had asked for personal loans - but without telling them it was doing this.
    The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has also criticised PPI policies for frequently exaggerating the level of cover on offer.
    Survey
    Despite the barrage of bad publicity over the past few years, and the increased regulatory scrutiny, PPI polices are still widely sold.
    Cover for credit cards repayments is the second most common form of PPI.
    Which?'s survey of 2000 adults in the UK found that 32% of those with credit cards had also bought a PPI policy as well. Of those, 13% said they believed that taking the cover was a condition of being given the card, or that their card application was more likely to succeed if they did so.
  • Banks Dominate FOS Complaints Shame-List:
    https://www.ifaonline.co.uk/ifaonline...nts-shame-list
    Banks dominated new FOS complaints figures naming and shaming the worst offenders for the first time.
    Seven banks each had more than 2,000 new complaints in the first six months of 2009, accounting for almost half of all complaints received by the FOS.
    Lloyds and its subsidiaries accounted for more than 15,233 complaints, more than a fifth of the total received by the FOS.
    National IFA Sesame received 144 complaints while Phoenix Life received 508 and Windsor Life 164. Elsewhere, Santander Asset Management and St James's Place Wealth Management are both listed.
    Providers Aviva, Axa, Friends Provident, Legal & General, Liverpool Victoria, Scottish Widows and Zurich are also included.
    The Financial Ombudsman Service is making available for the first time a range of complaints data relating to individually-named financial businesses - including insurance companies and investment firms.
    Figures cover those financial businesses where the FOS received at least 30 new cases and resolved at least 30 cases between 1 January 2009 and 30 June 2009.
    Barclays and Lloyds TSB Bank each received more than 6,000 new complaints in the first six months of the year, with Barclays receiving almost 8,300.
    Bank of Scotland, part of Lloyds, received more than 5,800, while Abbey National, HSBC, MBNA Europe and NatWest, part of the RBS group, each received more than 2,000. The Royal Bank of Scotland received more than 1,812.
    The vast majority of complaints relate to banking and credit or general insurance. A number of complaints also relate to mortgages and home finance, while the FOS also lists complaints on investments, life and pensions and decumulation.
    The data published today covers consumer complaints handled by the FOS between 1 January and 30 June 2009.
    During this six-month period, it received a total of 69,841 new complaints - of which 87% related to 142 financial businesses, out of more than 100,000 businesses covered by the ombudsman.
    The FOS says the number of new complaints against each business is likely to be affected by its size, but adds experts it consulted were unable to agree how size, or market share, should be taken into account.
    Almost 60% of complaints were upheld by the FOS. Across the 142 individual businesses included in the complaints data, the uphold rate varied substantially between 11% and 95%.
    It upheld 61% of banking-related complaints, 41% of mortgage complaints, 70% of general-insurance complaints and 42% of investment-related complaints.
    FOS chairman Sir Christopher Kelly says: "I will be writing to the chairmen of the financial businesses that generate the largest proportion of our complaints workload, to ask them to consider very carefully both their own complaints performance - as reflected in the data we are publishing today - and the complaints performance of their competitors."
    Walter Merricks, who is stepping down as chief ombudsman next month after 10 years in the role, adds: "I believe that putting this information into the open will now give those worse-performing businesses vital encouragement to improve - which should mean fewer of their customers having to bring unresolved complaints to the ombudsman."
  • Complaints data tells the real truth:
    https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/mon...enComment=true
    If knowledge is power, then banks and insurers have gone out of their way to ensure that the public remains in wretched ignorance. The industry pays lip service to calls for more openness and transparency, then cynically obscures information that would help customers to make informed choices.
    So the decision by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to publish data this week on the complaints that it receives marks a giant step forward.
    For years the industry has concealed information about complaints-handling behind a cloak of secrecy. Customers had to be protected against the danger of misinterpreting the data. Like the apple in the Garden of Eden, such information was regarded as too dangerous for the public to handle.
    Congratulations must go to the FOS for ignoring such patronising nonsense. It has allowed us to see, for the first time, which financial services companies have the worst record on customer complaints - Barclays Bank and Lloyds Banking Group this time round.
    The ombudsman has wisely recognised that nothing is more likely to drive up standards than the threat of such public exposure. No company will want to be near the top of this league of shame. The data (which you can find at www.fos.org.uk) shows the number of new complaints, by business name and by overall group, that have come to the FOS in the first six months of this year.
    But even more damning is the data about the percentage of cases that were resolved in the consumer's favour. The ombudsman service is the last resort - other than court - for individuals who feel that they have been ill-treated by a financial services company. So if companies have considered the cases carefully in the first instance and the ombudsman has handled the complaints fairly, there should be few rulings in favour of the customer.
    Traditionally, the ombudsman service has upheld about one in three complaints. But in some cases it is upholding 95 per cent of grievances.
    The Financial Services Authority (FSA) should come down hard on companies that are so clearly flouting good practice and the standards of "treating customers fairly".
    Talking of the FSA, it is time that the regulator stepped up its own plans to publish complaints data on individual companies. Crucially, this will show the number of complaints received by each company. Many of these grievances are resolved before they reach the FOS. It should therefore provide an even clearer picture of customer satisfaction.
    The FSA has promised to publish the information but says that it could be next summer before it is ready. Why the wait? It has required companies to compile such data for years and the sooner it makes it available the better.
    Bring back Sid - as long as shareholders are heard
    If you see Sid, tell him that George Osbourne, the Shadow Chancellor, wants a word. It emerged this week that the Conservatives are considering selling off stakes in Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) to ordinary investors - assuming, of course, that they win the next general election.
    The ambitious plan echoes Margaret Thatcher's British Gas privatisation in 1986 - famous for the "If you see Sid, tell him" slogan. That sell-off was hugely popular, tripling the number of UK shareholders overnight.
    Resurrecting Sid has popular appeal. Boosting the number of individuals on their share register could potentially give ordinary voters more of a say about how the banks are run and who gets bonuses. Surely that is the least that the public deserves for bailing them out?
    However, if it is going to make a difference, Mr Osbourne must ensure that it is made as easy as possible for private shareholders to have their say. Anyone who has ever trekked to an AGM will know that the turnout can be depressingly low. Who has the time to give up a day of work?
    For those who can't make it, Lloyds and RBS each allow voting by post. But given that postal workers seem to spend much of their time on strike nowadays, who would entrust their vote to the Royal Mail?
    RBS also allows online voting. If Mr Osbourne decides to press ahead with the plans he should push Lloyds to do the same. At one of the banks' rivals, Nationwide - which, as a mutual, has members rather than shareholders but still holds an annual meeting - online voting has been a great success. One in five votes cast at the last AGM was done so online.
    A shareholding democracy is a great idea, but only if individuals feel that they can have their say and that their voices will be heard.
    The Premium Bond fun factor won't pay your bills
    Premium bond payouts will rise by 50 per cent next month. Tempted?
    Don't be. The prize fund rate, the rate of return that a saver could expect with "average luck", will increase from 1 per cent to only 1.5 per cent in October.
    Premium Bonds remain the nation's favourite "investment". More than 23 million Britons have taken a punt and financial advisers continue to recommend them.
    But I have never understood their appeal. They may be a bit of fun - Harold Wilson called them a "squalid raffle" - but a serious investment? No chance.
  • Just found this on the AMI (association of mortgage intermediaries site) Dated 21st September, 2009 i THINK although difficult to tell but good at looking at rules of the complaints procedure. I will try and find out for sure if this is "current"...If it is then does the 5 days still stand for acknowledging complaints and just reading about the passing of complaints to other firms.. and the eligibilty of complaints???
    The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS)

    FOS is the independent dispute resolution service for complaints about financial services. If a customer is unable to resolve a dispute with an FSA-authorised firm, they can refer their complaint to FOS, at no cost to themselves.
    The complaints handling process
    The FSA rules lay down the requirements for FSA regulated firms. The definition of a complaint is wide-ranging. It is:
    'any expression of dissatisfaction, whether oral or written, and whether justified or not, from or on behalf of an eligible complainant about the provision of, or failure to provide, a financial service.'
    The current rules require complaints to be acknowledged within five working days, and updates to be issued four and eight weeks following receipt if the complaint has not previously been resolved. Once a firm issues its final response letter it must include details of how the complaint can be referred to FOS. These details must also be included on the letter sent eight weeks after receipt of the complaint, if the complaint has yet to be resolved at this point.
    Proposed changes to the complaint handling rules. FSA is currently consulting on a number of changes to the rules around complaint handling in its consultation paper CP06/19. It is essentially a relaxation of the rules, for example, FSA is proposing that the rule requiring complaints to be acknowledged within five working days be changed to one requiring the an acknowledgement to be made 'promptly'. The changes are proposed as a result of the FSA's need to implement the European Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) and the FSA's move to a more principles-based regulatory regime.
    FSA's proposed changes for complaints handling include:
  • Changing the criteria for 'eligible complainants'.
  • Reducing the prescriptive rules around firms' acknowledgement of complaints and holding replies.
  • No longer requiring a firm which forwards a complaint (to another firm to deal with) to tell the complainant of this in a 'final response'.
  • Shortening the module focusing more clearly on firms' central obligation to treat complaints promptly and fairly.
  • https://www.a-m-i.org.uk/your-industry/issue10.php

  • Cheers for this Marshallka.X
Категория: