MSE News: Arnold Schwarzenegger returns in new PPI reclaim ad

Paul_DNAP wrote: »

why didn't they make it the bank's duty to contact previous customers to push out the refund

Not all PPI was mis-sold.

Certainly a very large proportion was, but not enough to justify automatic refunds for everyone who was sold the insurance.

No one making a complaint has to "doff his cap", in fact many complaints are pretty blunt. I know mine was.:)

Paul_DNAP wrote: »

If they are actually concerned about how many people who had loans who have not checked, then why didn't they make it the bank's duty to contact previous customers to push out the refund rather than make it the duty of people who have been cheated to go and find the people who cheated them and doff their cap like Oliver Twist and say "please sir, can I have some of that money you robbed off me".

1 - Not all PPI was missold.
2 - Not all PPI was put in place by banks.
3 - There is nothing wrong with having PPI.

Your approach would be to punish the innocent firms/sellers.

There should be a lot more automatic upholds but the trouble is the banks are inherently dishonest.

Over half of PPI complaints are from people that dont have PPI. Yet they make all sorts of allegations. Consumers are equally dishonest. And banks have been paying out automatically on many cases for years.

Mchambers wrote: »

The original advert was a load of clap. Just hope the new one is better.

Alas, your hopes are not met. The new ones are worse, and look like the cheapest advert from the tackiest ambulance chasers out there, and don't come across as being something serious form the government. I would trust the Gladstone-brooks guy more, which is none at all.

No-one disagrees that the banks went to town on this. However, the rules put in place on complaining about PPI seriously disadvantaged the banks. Some even considered that it was a way to punish them. This has led to significant numbers of people putting in false complaints and getting paid out.

The last "forced" review, where the firms had to be proactive across the board was the pension review covering all pensions sold between 1988 and 1994. The person that set up that review later said that it resulted in too many people getting paid redress who did not deserve it. it created significant costs to firms that did no wrong and caused some to close down despite doing no wrong. And that was before todays compensation culture.

I haven't suffered any PPI complaints but that is largely down to me being mostly investments. I did have someone enquire if I had sold PPI to them. I hadn't. However, had I done so, it would have been a genuine sale (I am personally liable for the advice I give. So, its my pocket that it hits if I do wrong). Despite that, I know that person with their tone would have put in a complaint regardless.

I had a mortgage broker visit me one morning. A young guy not long started out. He was in tears because someone put a complaint in about missold PPI. He hadnt sold any and the complaint was rejected with no PPI sold but they still took it to the FOS and he suffered a £500 fee because of that. He was on a low income being new and that really hit him hard in the pocket and it completely changed his whole outlook. He couldnt do any business for weeks because his confidence had been shattered. The banks may be faceless but small firms are not.

No solution is going to be perfect and there are those that try it on on both sides. The whole PPI affair is messy with neither consumers, banks or the regulator coming out of it smelling of roses. (include the regulator as they knew, as did everyone, that the banks had been selling it that way for over 20 years and did nothing).