PPI news thread

pinknico

Thats good for him but only because a claims company contacted him, not the company itself, so it needs to be made common knowledge, if you took only part payment go to the FOS.

marshallka

pinknico wrote: »

Thats good for him but only because a claims company contacted him, not the company itself, so it needs to be made common knowledge, if you took only part payment go to the FOS.

Yep if its Fossible that is. Mind you they would tell you to swivel altogether if it was not.

kpwll

marshallka wrote: »

Yep if its Fossible that is. Mind you they would tell you to swivel altogether if it was not.

Nice one Marshallka, I think the word Fossible is very witty and clever.
Karen x :T

di3004

Some news posted by MSE Guy.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/loans/2009/10/could-the-debt-write-off-industry-soon-become-a-write-off?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_campaign=box

Could the debt write off industry become a right off?

(Thought i would post it here).

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Some news posted by MSE Guy.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/loans/2009/10/could-the-debt-write-off-industry-soon-become-a-write-off?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_campaign=box

Could the debt write off industry become a right off?

(Thought i would post it here).

A newspaper report from here
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6868968.ece


I wonder what petermb will say to this one?? I thought this was something petermb said would happen???

di3004

In today's media:

Barclays awaits PPI Decision.

http://money.aol.co.uk/barclays-awaits-ppi-decision/article/20091016010037188906387

Barclays is due to find out if it has been successful in its bid to lift a future ban on the sale of controversial payment protection insurance alongside credit agreements.

The high street bank has challenged a recent decision by the Competition Commission to ban the sale of the insurance alongside credit cards, loans and mortgages from October 2010.

Once the ban comes into force providers will have to wait for seven days before they can contact customers to sell them the cover.

In a Competition Appeal Tribunal hearing in September, Barclays argued that the point of sale ban was not justified by the evidence collected as part of the Competition Commission's investigation.



The Competition Appeal Tribunal is due to give its verdict in the case on Friday.
Barclays was supported in its appeal by Lloyds Banking Group, in which the Government holds a 43% stake, and Shop Direct Group Financial Services.
It was opposed by the Competition Commission and City watchdog the Financial Services Authority.
The point of sale ban is one of a number of measures which will be introduced next year in a bid to increase competition in the Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) market, alongside changes to make it easier for people to shop around for the cover and to change providers.

The changes being implemented by the Competition Commission are expected to lead to a steep fall in the £4 billion a year that banks and insurers receive from PPI sales.

PPI covers loan repayments if the holder is unable to work due to an accident or illness or if they lose their job.

di3004

Good one for having your say on this Martin.:T:T:T


Payment protection reform delayed:

http://money.aol.co.uk/payment-protection-reform-delayed/article/20091016104007599380336

Plans to reform the controversial payment protection insurance market suffered a setback.
The Competition Commission was ordered to reassess its plans to ban the sale of the cover alongside credit cards, loans and mortgages.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal said the Commission had failed to take into account the impact the ban would have on consumers.
The move is likely to delay the implementation of other measures which were due to come into force in October 2010 to boost competition in the payment protection insurance (PPI) market, while the Commission carries out further work on the issue.



The judgment follows an appeal by Barclays, which argued that the point of sale ban was not justified by the evidence collected by the Commission and failed to consider the consumer detriment that could arise as a result of it.
The point of sale ban was one of a number of measures which were due to be introduced next year, alongside changes to make it easier for people to shop around for PPI and to change providers. The changes were expected to lead to a steep fall in the £4 billion a year that banks and insurers receive from PPI sales.
But the Commission said it was now reviewing the timescale for implementing the changes following the judgment.
Barclays, which was supported in its appeal by Lloyds Banking Group, in which the Government holds a 43% stake, and Shop Direct Group Financial Services, welcomed the judgment. A Barclays spokeswoman said: "We are pleased that the Competition Appeal Tribunal has ordered the point of sale ban to be reviewed."
But Martin Lewis, creator of MoneySavingExpert.com, said: "We desperately need a stop to this 'auto-sales' process where commission-based bank staff try and push borrowers into getting these policies."

PPI covers debt repayments if the holder is unable to work due to an accident or illness or if they lose their job

marshallka

ombudsman news

issue 80

October/November 2009
insurance disputes involving claims for unemployment or sickness benefit

A number of different insurance products offer benefits in the event of an accident, sickness or unemployment – and we see a significant number of complaints involving claims made under policies of this type. Sometimes, the consumer is unhappy because of delays in processing and paying a claim. But more often, in the cases brought to us, the insurer has turned down a claim for reasons that the consumer thinks unfair or unreasonable.
Consumers who have claimed under policies of this type will generally be experiencing difficult circumstances, so a considerable amount of sensitivity is called for when dealing with these issues.
The following case studies illustrate our approach in some of the complaints we have dealt with recently. As always, the outcome will depend on the specific details of each individual case.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/80/80-unemployment.htm




Does this mean whereby people are putting in complaints for misselling because they made a claim and it was rejected that these complaints now are whereby the ombudsman says that the insurer should have paid out as none of these examples are upheld for misselling here. I have seen lots on here where the insurer did not pay out for one reason or another and then they go straight to misselling over it as the policy was not of any use but FOS looks to be seeing whether the insurer was actually correct in rejecting the claim.

marshallka

Ombudsman seeks whistleblowers on PPI

• Story by: Joe McGrath
• Magazine: FTAdviser
• Published Tuesday , October 20, 2009

The Financial Ombudsman Service (Fos) has angered advisers by asking them to disclose contractual information on insurance distribution deals with lenders between 2001 and 2005.
It comes after the Competition Commission was advised to reconsider its decision to ban payment protection insurance (PPI) being sold at the point of sale by the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
Larger intermediaries offering PPI have been asked to supply confidential details of distribution agreements during these years when protection providers were regulated and most brokers were not. Many providers of such products were lenders selling 'coupled' insurance.
Loan and mortgage brokers, however, are concerned that blowing the whistle on these suppliers may result in them losing their agency with the lender, further limiting their options in a market where products are already scarce.
Robert Sinclair, director of the Association of Independent Financial Advisers, has moved to remind members that intermediaries are under no obligation whatsoever to provide such information. He said, "Where firms are asked for information to defend a case, the firm has a choice as to how much information they provide to the FOS. We are not aware that that FOS has any right to demand particular documentation for any firm to defend itself."
FOS maintains that it is simply following standard practice as it did previously with the endowment misselling scandal. Emma Parker, spokeswoman for FOS, said that if firms have any concerns, they should bring them directly to the Ombudsman.
"We are asking for standard things around the commercial agreements that firms had at the time and always try to ensure that we have all the relevant, accurate information," she added.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal decision to overturn the Competition Commission’s ruling came after Barclay's lodged an appeal against the original PPI decision. The lender sold such policies through branches and its Barclaycard and Firstplus loan divisions.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Ombudsman seeks whistleblowers on PPI

• Story by: Joe McGrath
• Magazine: FTAdviser
• Published Tuesday , October 20, 2009

The Financial Ombudsman Service (Fos) has angered advisers by asking them to disclose contractual information on insurance distribution deals with lenders between 2001 and 2005.
It comes after the Competition Commission was advised to reconsider its decision to ban payment protection insurance (PPI) being sold at the point of sale by the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
Larger intermediaries offering PPI have been asked to supply confidential details of distribution agreements during these years when protection providers were regulated and most brokers were not. Many providers of such products were lenders selling 'coupled' insurance.
Loan and mortgage brokers, however, are concerned that blowing the whistle on these suppliers may result in them losing their agency with the lender, further limiting their options in a market where products are already scarce.
Robert Sinclair, director of the Association of Independent Financial Advisers, has moved to remind members that intermediaries are under no obligation whatsoever to provide such information. He said, "Where firms are asked for information to defend a case, the firm has a choice as to how much information they provide to the FOS. We are not aware that that FOS has any right to demand particular documentation for any firm to defend itself."
FOS maintains that it is simply following standard practice as it did previously with the endowment misselling scandal. Emma Parker, spokeswoman for FOS, said that if firms have any concerns, they should bring them directly to the Ombudsman.
"We are asking for standard things around the commercial agreements that firms had at the time and always try to ensure that we have all the relevant, accurate information," she added.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal decision to overturn the Competition Commission’s ruling came after Barclay's lodged an appeal against the original PPI decision. The lender sold such policies through branches and its Barclaycard and Firstplus loan divisions.

Thanks for this Marshallka.
Things are looking up then at last?;)

I have posted about the Hamilton one in the discussion thread in regards of Hamilton, and its all thanks to you Marshallka, would not have pushed if it wasnt for you, cheers so much.:T:T:beer:

(sorry not news related this post of mine).:o