PPI news thread

di3004

nanna58 wrote: »

Sorry hope im n the right place!!!!
is ppi the same as payment break plan with barclaycard ?

thank you

Hi there

I am not too sure on this, but Barclays should be able to confirm this to you, if you do then have a claim please ask for help, good luck.;)

di3004

Banks face massive fines for poor service:



Not exactly PPI related but in regards of banks not investigating "complaints" as they should be.

28 April 2010, 9:56am
Reader comments (5)

Two of Britain's biggest banks face huge fines for failing to investigate customers' complaints properly.

• Banks failing on complaints

A probe by the City regulator into the UK's largest banks, including those part-owned by the state, discovered widespread failings in the way customer problems were handled.

Staff in two banks were incentivised not to deal with complaints properly and not pay redress.
Several banking groups - responsible for more than 70% of complaints - were investigated. Five were subject to detailed investigations and ordered to improve their complaints handling.
The Financial Services authority would not confirm which five banks it investigated. But Britain's five biggest are Lloyds Banking Group (which includes Halifax and Bank of Scotland), Royal Bank of Scotland (including NatWest), Santander (formerly Abbey), HSBC and Barclays.
Two now face further punishment and could be hit with multi-million pound fines. But the FSA has warned other banks could face fines if improvements are not made by the end of the year.
Consumer groups said the crackdown could finally address banks' 'abuse' of customers.
The FSA's investigation found:
• More than a third of complaints were not investigated properly.
• Poor decisions were made on 18% of complaints.
• Inadequate compensation was paid out.
• Poorly trained staff.
• Customers were kept waiting for months with no resolution.
• Standard letters were sent to customers time and again, increasing their frustration.
• Senior managers failed to take responsibility for fair complaints handling.
• And banks failed to learn from previous complaints. Dan Waters, the FSA's director of conduct risk, says: 'A culture of fair complaints handling is an important indicator of whether a firm is committed to treating its customers fairly. There is clearly evidence of unacceptable standards of complaints handling in banks.'


Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/savings-and-banking/article.html?in_article_id=503507&in_page_id=7&ct=5#ixzz0mO08kGXl


More on the link.

di3004

More on the above directly from the FSA website.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/074.shtml

FSA/PN/074/2010
28 April 2010
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is taking tough action after finding weaknesses in five banks handling of customer complaints.
As a result of the review, five banks are undertaking major changes to the way they deal with complaints and two of the five banks have been referred to enforcement for further investigation.
The review looked at several banking groups responsible for over 70% of the complaints firms receive and report to the FSA and over 60% of those resolved by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
It found poor standards of complaint handling within most of the banks assessed, including:

• A lack of senior management engagement and accountability for the delivery of fair complaint handling;
• Poorly designed staff incentive schemes that made branch staff reluctant to pay redress to customers, even in situations where the bank was at fault;
• Poor quality complaint handling by staff in branches and general call-centres leading to inadequate investigations, poor decision making as to the outcome of the complaint and unsatisfactory correspondence with customers;
• Complaint handling procedures that led to staff issuing multiple, repetitive responses to customers, forcing them to restate their complaint a number of times in the face of ongoing negative responses from the bank;
• The failure of banks to learn from previous complaints and to make changes to prevent similar complaints arising in the future.

Importantly, the FSA did find examples of good and compliant practices in parts of some of the banking groups assessed. This demonstrates it is possible for banks to handle high volumes of complaints and deliver fair outcomes for consumers.
Dan Waters, the FSA’s director of conduct risk, said:
“A culture of fair complaint handling is an important indicator of whether a firm is committed to treating its customers fairly. It is vital that customers know that if something goes wrong, their complaint will be deal with in a reasonable way and that they will get a fair outcome.
“While we found some good practice, there is clearly evidence of unacceptable standards of complaints handling in banks. Delivering change in this area is a major priority and we are determined to use all the tools available to us to ensure that banks comply with our rules.”
To assist all firms in meeting its requirements, the FSA has published a complaints handling file review template, which firms may wish to use to help them assess if their complaint handling is achieving fair outcomes for customers.
The FSA is also reviewing whether it needs to make changes to its existing rules on complaint handling and will be publishing its proposals in the third quarter of this year.
Notes for editors

1. The review of complaint handling in banking groups can be found on the FSA website.
2. This review follows concerns about the quality of complaint handling in banking groups highlighted by past work on PPI and bank overdraft charges and our wider supervisory work. The Financial Ombudsman Service has also identified concerns from the cases it handles. Poor complaint handling has also been identified as a key conduct risk in the Financial Risk Outlook (FRO) 2009 and 2010.
3. The FSA has undertaken a programme of work to drive improvement in the quality of firm’s complaint handling. The FSA’s work on transparency and discussion paper with the OFT and FOS.
4. The degree of change necessary in some banks requires sustained and rigorous effort from senior management to deliver improvement and it is important to note that actions taken by banks may not quickly result in a decrease in complaint volumes or the numbers of complaints referred to the FOS.
5. The findings in this report are not formal determinations of breaches of FSA requirements. The purpose of this report is to give an illustration of the types of issues we have identified. Any formal determination against specific firms will follow the FSA's usual decision-making processes.
6. This approach builds on the FSA’s TCF work and is an example of how it is using intensive supervision to deliver its consumer protection strategy – testing whether firms are delivering fair outcomes and holding them to account where the FSA finds poor practice.
7. The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has five objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; promoting public understanding of the financial system; securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; fighting financial crime; and contributing to the protection and enhancement of the stability of the UK financial system.

marshallka

Has anyone noticed how the chief ombudsman is now a woman. Things might speed up then now LOL

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/video_welcome.htm

:beer:

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Has anyone noticed how the chief ombudsman is now a woman. Things might speed up then now LOL

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/video_welcome.htm

:beer:

Yes was reading about this the other day, and now the timescales to collect info from banks and consumers is cut down to 2 weeks as well, so maybe complaints will be dealt with quicker now.:beer:

di3004

Check some updates on FSA Investigations on links below:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=503709&in_page_id=2&ct=5

http://www.which.co.uk/about-which/press/press-releases/campaign-press-releases/personal-finance/2010/04/fsa-investigation-underlines-sales-culture-in-uk-banks.jsp

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1269713/Lenders-fobbing-customers.html

robbedofmymoney

di3004 wrote: »

Check some updates on FSA Investigations on links below:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=503709&in_page_id=2&ct=5

http://www.which.co.uk/about-which/press/press-releases/campaign-press-releases/personal-finance/2010/04/fsa-investigation-underlines-sales-culture-in-uk-banks.jsp

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1269713/Lenders-fobbing-customers.html

about time too, maybe they will sort themselves out quickly before any decisions are made by the FSA.

i reckon someone got a good bonus for not upholding my claim from Lloyds
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

di3004

Consumers win back £284m over mis-selling:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=504258&in_page_id=2


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/artic ... 2Customers of banks and insurers have won back £284m after becoming the victims of mis-selling and administrative errors in the last six months of 2009.


Consumer action: Victims of mis-selling have won £284m in compensation.

The vast majority of redress was given to those who were mis-sold payment protection insurance.
These customers were among those given back £114m in compensation by insurers.

The payouts were made public for the first time yesterday by City regulator the Financial Services Authority.

Its figures also revealed the estimated 1.1m complaints banks had received from customers about unauthorised overdraft charges.

This flood was created by the end of a waiver that had allowed banks to put on hold all bank charges complaints.

When the waiver was removed after a Supreme Court decision, banks became obliged to deal with the complaints they had already received.

In total, banks and insurers received 2.7m complaints between July and December 2009 — an increase of 1.1m on the previous six months.

Some 45% of all cases received were upheld in favour of the consumer.

In all, banks paid out £202m to their customers. Insurance brokers paid out £20m.

The FSA warned last month that it was taking tough action after finding weaknesses in the way the major banks had dealt with dissatisfied customers.

It said two banks may face enforcement action over the poor way they had handled customer complaints, while five out of the six banks it looked at had agreed to make 'significant' changes to the way they dealt with complaints.

The FSA has already sounded alarm bells that banks were forcing customers to buy expensive products in a bid to boost their profits. From later this year, all banks will be forced to publish the numbers of complaints they receive.

di3004

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/news/updates/annual-review-2010.html

ombudsman service publishes annual review of personal finance disputes:

19 May 2010
The Financial Ombudsman Service – the independent organisation that settles disputes between consumers and financial companies – today publishes its annual review covering the 2009/10 financial year. The review shows that during the year, the ombudsman:

• Resolved a record 166,321 disputes – a 46% annual increase –resulting in compensation for consumers in 50% of cases.
• Handled 925,095 consumer enquiries – over 3,500 each working day.
• Saw the number of insurance disputes increase by 38% (largely due to the rise in complaints about payment protection insurance), and complaints about banking and credit rise by 30% – but investment complaints stayed at the same level, motor insurance disputes decreased by 13%, and pension complaints fell by 27%.

Natalie Ceeney, newly-appointed chief executive and chief ombudsman, said:

This month marks the tenth anniversary of the Financial Ombudsman Service. Ten years ago the ombudsman was set up by law to settle 25,000 disputes a year – this year we’re expecting to resolve 200,000.

While the aims and values of the ombudsman service remain unchanged, this eight-fold increase in our caseload means we are now operating on an entirely different scale. And these high numbers of complaints look set to stay – so we need to plan ahead on this scale for the next decade, ensuring we are ready to meet the demands and expectations of our increasingly diverse customers and stakeholders.

Statistics from the ombudsman’s annual review show:

• Payment protection insurance (PPI) accounting for three out of every ten new cases referred to the ombudsman service – a 58% increase on the previous year, following a three-fold increase in the year before that.
• Complaints about unsecured loans and financial hardship rising – but complaints about credit cards and mortgages levelling off.
• Complaints about consumer credit (including “point of sale” loans, catalogue shopping and credit broking) more than doubling.
• The proportion of complaints referred to the ombudsman service by claims-management companies on behalf of consumers continuing to increase – from 26% to 28% of all cases. Two-thirds of cases referred by claims management companies to the ombudsman service related to payment protection insurance.
• The ombudsman resolving 38% of all disputes within three months and 67% of cases within six months.
• Half of the total number of disputes referred to the ombudsman service involving four of the UK's largest financial services groups – while 2,259 businesses had one complaint each.
• The proportion of complaints from "skilled and semi-skilled" workers ("C1/C2") increasing by 21% – with complaints from people from professional backgrounds falling by 23% in the last three years.
• 75% of adults saying they had heard of the Financial Ombudsman Service – with awareness of the ombudsman highest in the Wales and lowest in Northern Ireland. 97% of people said they had no problem finding the ombudsman service’s contact details.

Ravikrishna97

Hi.. I don't know whether somebody could guide us.
My bro-in-law took a loan in Lloydtsb in August 2007 and he was forced to take a PPI. His English language knowledge is limited, hence he could not fully argue or understand what he is entering into. Well ! Even English natives could not understand the Bank/Insurance companies lingo and other terms and condtions.
So when we came to know that he is being ripped off in the form of PPI, we deceided to cancel the PPI. With our limited knowledge, we approached Lloydstsb in the same way as any common man would do, i.e. by going to the very same branch where it was sold. We have been driven from pillar to post in so many ways and finally (After two long months!) finally we managed to lodge a complaint.
As usual the complaint was rejected with no valid reasons. They wrote in so many words about how they practice the correct procedures etc., which we could hardly understand. However, on the final paragraph they wrote,saying that in view of the good will gesture, they are ready to offer 60% of the PPI premium paid so far.

But they added insult to the injury by producing a document which my brother-in-law, alledged to have seen and signed during the time of taking the loan. Unfortunately, this document happens to be a forged or created later , when we complained.

The reason for saying this is, this alledged document has the present address of my bro-in-law, where as when he took the loan and PPI, he was living in a different address in a different county. And on top of that it does not carry my bro-in-law's signature any where in the document.

The Loan and PPI was taken in Aug-2007, when he was living in a different address. He moved into a new address in July 2008 only. So, how come lloydstsb is producing a document which suppose to have been seen by my bro-in-law with the new address in 2007 itself? (I hope I have made my point clear!!).

So when we wrote to them about this, Lloydstsb Insurance, refuse to acknowledge our communication. When we contacted them yesterday (19-05-2010), the person on the phone, reiterated that they stand by the final decision and they refuse to discuss further.

Now, we know that we can go further and start complaining to FOS, which I have already started.
Other than this, what else we can do?
How come a such huge banking and Insurance institution can create/produce/forge a false document to suppliment their claim and decision?
Is it not a criminal offence?
If a common man does the same, will he/she not be punished?
This whole episode has brought in huge stress and mental agony on my bro-in-laws family.
Incidently, his wife took a loan of £5000 in 2008 and she was also sold a PPI. The ppi premium was almost 50% of the loan if it ran the full course. When she complained, not only her complaint was upheld, she was awarded a full refund along with appropriate interest on those payments,as Mr. Martin Lewis mentioned.

In the above scenerio, what shall we do?