PPI news thread

marshallka

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/may/18/payment-protection-misselling-banks

PPI mis-selling claims swamp banks

Complaints about payment protection insurance double and consumers warned it will take 'months if not years' to get redress



Lenders sought PPI rate cut - they don't want to pay the 8% statutory interest so it seems.....

LInk is from FT.com

Some banks suggested the rate should fall to as low as 1.5 per cent, which they argued would better reflect the likely returns borrowers could have achieved by investing the money elsewhere. Their complaints – which were overruled by the FSA – were an attempt to soften the blow of what has become the biggest consumer pay-out in decades...... don't think the link will work but if you google the title you will find it.


BUT I bet they have made far more money on each premium.

marshallka

marshallka wrote: »

I "harped" on about this only a couple of days ago.... seems they are still winning.

Even the people they HAVE to pay back will come from interest earned on the previously STOLEN money from people before regulations. Then they will hike loan costs and none will come from their own pockets. Consumers will pay again.

It all looked good on paper too as the profits were "FALSE". If they had not stolen money they would not have shown no where near as much profit. How will the FSA deal with that one? Surely they need to do something there?

Here we go - oh dear..... I was only on about this a few days ago too......

Lloyds Banking Could Claw Back Bonuses Linked To PPI


LONDON (Dow Jones)--Lloyds Banking Group PLC (LYG) might reclaim executive compensation that had been linked to payment protection insurance revenue, Chairman Win Bischoff suggested at the bank's annual general meeting Wednesday.
Lloyds shocked investors earlier this month by taking a GBP3.2 billion provision toward compensating customers who were mis-sold payment protection insurance, a form of insurance commonly used by mortgage borrowers and people taking out personal loans in case they lose their jobs. The provision raised questions about pay awards that were linked to PPI revenue.
"The implications on compensation are being considered by the remuneration committee and will be determined by the board in due course, in line with the FSA code on compensation," Bischoff told shareholders at the AGM. He said discussions are also being held with the FSA on the matter.
FSA pay rules introduced last year include clawback provisions in situations where the profits they were based on prove illusory or inaccurate. It isn't clear how those rules would apply to pay awards before they came into effect.
Bischoff's comments came amid widespread anger from shareholders over the meeting over payouts to former Chief Executive Eric Daniels, who stepped down as CEO at the end of February but will remain on the bank's payroll until September. He was awarded a GBP1.45 million bonus for 2010.

marshallka

PPI complainants may miss deadline..........

http://money.uk.msn.com/news/money-news/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=157592378

The FSA is understood to be considering whether to use new powers to force firms to review previous PPI complaints that have been rejected. There may also be another route for people who have previously complained to get compensation, as firms must now proactively contact customers and alert them to the fact that they may be entitled to redress if they identify a pattern of mis-selling.
It is thought that people who receive one of these letters may be able to reissue their claim even if they have previously had it rejected and not taken it to the ombudsman.
Sarah Brooks, head of financial services at Consumer Focus, said: "Everyone should be given the chance to get compensation if they were mis-sold PPI, even if they had a previous complaint rejected by their bank.
"Banks have come this far - it would be a shame to see them using a loophole to avoid treating all victims of mis-selling equally and fairly."
The ombudsman has frequently complained that banks were not handling PPI complaints properly, often rejecting them without fully investigating. It has found in favour of consumers in two-thirds of cases, although this rises to 100% for some financial services firms

marshallka

http://www.ftadviser.com/FTAdviser/Insurance/News/article/20110525/21547aea-86c6-11e0-bbd6-00144f2af8e8/Government-puts-onus-on-insurers-in-disputes.jsp


The government has confirmed that it plans to introduce new rules that will place the onus on insurance providers to obtain any relevant information regarding an individual before issuing an insurance policy, in a move that will herald a major shift in the way disputes are settled.
In its Consumer Finance Bill, which is expected to be brought into law in 2013, the government will set out a requirement for insurers to "ask particular questions and obtain specific information about their customers, before they issue an insurance policy".
The new rules will mean that where disputes arise over insurance claims that have been rejected on the grounds of misrepresentation or non-disclosure, emphasis will be placed on whether the insurer asked clear questions before it issued the policy to the customer.

Where questions were asked but the customer inadvertantly answered incorrectly, the insurer will be able to apply a 'proportionate remedy', which would bring the claim payout into line with what it would have been had the information been collected accurately.
The change, the first major update to insurance laws since the Marine Insurance Act of 1906, is based on recommendations made by the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission in their 2009 report and attempts to bring the law into line with Financial Ombudsman Service (Fos) guidance.
The report said that Association of British Insurers' (ABI) statements of practice and the Financial Services Authority's (FSA) rules on this issue followed the correct principles and were applied by the Fos, but that this was "not an adequate cure for defects in the law".
Mark Hoban, Financial Secretary to the Treasury said: "The Government is committed to strengthening consumer protection in financial services and these reforms will help meet this commitment.
"They will provide a better deal for the consumer, while saving money for the industry and giving people the certainty they need when taking out insurance.
"We have worked hard to consult all of the interested parties in producing this Bill and, as a result, it has received broad-based support, not only from consumers and legal groups, but from insurers and brokers as well.

di3004

News from 16 May 2011

FSCS will target insurers for compensation over PPI’s scandal


http://www.accident-reporting.com/fscs-will-target-insurers-for-compensation-over-ppi%E2%80%99s-scandal/


With debate still raging over who is really responsible for the shambles involving mis-sold PPI’s, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) has confirmed that it will be pursing insurers for compensation.

Following the High Court ruling earlier this week – which held members of the British Bankers Association liable for mis-selling insurance to millions of consumers, the FSCS has decided that insurers should be held accountable and they will be seeking recoveries from third parties where possible.

The broker trade body has agreed that in circumstances where brokers have acted as agents for the insurer, it should be left up to the FSCS to decide whether it is economically viable for the claim to be pursued. So far, there has been no confirmation from the company that any insurers are in line to face legal action, but a spokeswoman stated that they would be considering all potential avenues for recovery and are open to pursuing them if needs be.

Mike Cranny, a regulatory compliance consultant, is happy that insurers could be facing punitive action, but pointed out that there was little scope to chase up individuals who have been selling policies on behalf of the insurance companies. He also said that it seemed obvious that many PPI’s were sold without acceptable information being impressed upon the individual purchasing the policy, and that insurers were slow to act when complaints were raised, citing that ‘distribution channels were not chosen wisely’.

Mr Cranny is not alone in his thinking; many other insurance executives take the stance that the banks were greedy and are now getting their comeuppance for treating their customers dishonestly. In many cases, the banks and building societies have looked past customer service and only considered maximising sales, with no thought for later consequences.

It is still unknown whether the British Bankers Association will appeal the FSA’s decision, but if they bow to the ruling, they could be liable for in excess of £4.5billion. However, there are some rumbling concerns among brokers that not only could there be an enormous pay out, but insurance costs may spiral and they could be left with an indefinite number of claimants expecting their money back, bringing the compensation culture to the forefront of people’s minds.

di3004

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2011/046.shtml


FSA confirms new consumer complaint handling rules and an increase to the Financial Ombudsman award limit to £150,000

FSA/PN/046/2011
27 May 2011
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today confirmed new complaints handling rules as part of a package of measures to drive up standards within the industry.
The new rules include:

• Abolition of the ‘two-stage’ complaints handling rule to make sure firms resolve complaints fairly and do not dismiss them the first time, requiring persistence from the customer to pursue the complaint;
• Requiring firms to identify a senior individual responsible for complaints handling;
• Additional guidance to help firms understand the processes they might need in place to meet FSA requirements on root cause analysis; and
• Further guidance requiring firms to take account of ombudsman decisions and previous customer complaints.

The consultation statement also confirms an increase to the limit on awards made by the Financial Ombudsman Service from £100,000 to £150,000.
Sheila Nicoll, the FSA’s director of conduct policy, said:
''We would rather customers were not put in a position where they had to complain, but when they do we want them to be treated fairly by their firm, with their complaint resolved promptly and being provided with redress when needed.
''Good complaints handling contributes to customer loyalty and should provide the opportunity for firms to put right problems in product design or sales before issues become widespread. But we have found major failures with the way firms handle customer complaints and have since taken enforcement action against two firms as a result of poor complaints practices.''
Complaints handling forms a key part of the FSA’s intensive and intrusive approach to supervising how firms deal with their customers. Since 2009 the FSA has published aggregate complaints statistics so that customers can see the volume of complaints being received by firms. In September 2010 the FSA also started to publish firm-specific complaints data, enabling customers to compare and contrast the way different firms deal with their complaints.
On 25 May 2011, the FSA announced a fine for Bank of Scotland of £3.5 million for failures related to complaints handling of its retail investment products. This is the second firm fined following the FSA’s review of complaint handling practises by five major banking groups. Royal Bank of Scotland and Natwest were fined £2.8 million in April 2010 for multiple failings in the way they handled customers’ complaints.

marshallka

"Cottage" Industry ready to "steal" a little more

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110613-707314.html

amersall

marshallka wrote: »

"Cottage" Industry ready to "steal" a little more

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110613-707314.html

Par for the course with these companys.
Hope no one is daft enough to go with these after all the publicity on tv regarding ppi, all banks say you can do this for free and you dont have to use a claims company.
I just hope people take heed.

Desperatelyindebt

dont know if already posted but lloyds,rbs,hsbc and barclays have all been given time extensions on dealing with ppi complaints p i cant post links as a newbie but have posted it on the main board

ALIBOBSY

di3004 wrote: »

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/credit-and-loans/ppi-mis-selling/article.html?in_article_id=533825&in_page_id=506&position=moretopstories

Now banks exploit a new PPI loophole.

Tens of thousands of customers who have had complaints about payment protection insurance (PPI) rejected could be denied justice despite banks finally admitting to widespread mis‑selling.

Last week banks dropped their legal fight with City watchdog the Financial Services Authority (FSA) which had ordered them to compensate those who had been mis-sold PPI dating back to the start of 2005. Up to 6.4m customers could be in line to share a payout worth around £9bn. Now it has emerged that some banks are hiding behind rules which state that they don't have to investigate any complaint they have already rejected.

Anyone who has a formal complaint rejected must take their appeal to the Financial Ombudsman Service within six months.
If they don't, then the complaint lapses and they lose all chance to appeal unless there are exceptional circumstances such as long-term illness, being out of the country or if the lender failed to tell them of their right to use the Ombudsman. Some banks routinely fobbed off PPI complaints for years — and around 70% of customers did not take their complaint to the Ombudsman. Even though they may have had a valid case, those customers may now miss out on compensation.

Santander says it will not consider compensating any customers who have already had their complaint rejected.
State-backed RBS and NatWest say they will offer redress 'in line with the standards the FSA now requires' — which does not include complaints already rejected. Lloyds Banking Group, which includes Halifax and Cheltenham & Gloucester, simply says that customers should contact them directly. Barclays and HSBC on the other hand, say that customers who have already been dismissed should get in touch again because the banks are now assessing complaints differently.

The thing to do is raise a claim and argue new evidence-see if you can add an extra reason as to why it was miss sold, at the very least you can say it was reasonable for you to expect the bank to respect its duty of care to the customer and that you believed then when they originally said your policy was not miss sold. Your new claim therefore is based on the fact that the new FOS investigations and guidence have revealed to you your policy was miss sold and the bank misled you when you last queried it. Even better if you get one of those letters some lenders are sending out to say they got things wrong when selling ppi-had a good one from halifax last week.

ali x