MSE News: Worst banks for complaint rejections named and shamed

marcellep

This has to be one of the most interesting articles I have read in a long time

Thanks so much for showing this to all

LilacPixie

It does not surprise me. I have a complaint with FOS regarding one of the top offenders and to be honest despite the company concerned putting it in writting in 2005 that PPI is compulsary the company still refused to settle my PPI claim so off to the FOS it went.

bunking_off

MSE_Martin wrote: »

Not sure which of the two articles you're referring too - but we've proof by the bucket load.

We have companies turning down thousands of PPI cases where 99% of time the Ombudsman rules against them. The Ombudsman has publically said it has shown them the statistics in private for a while to ask them to change their policy of rejection but it hasn't happened so this is now a public name and shame.

The pieces are full of stats... what isn't proved?

I was linked in from your editorial piece. This in turn was linked from the "latest MSE news" in the sidebar, and doesn't make any mention of the other article...hence I was confused by your comment until I followed the "this thread is to discuss" link at the top of this thread and found the other article.

I will freely concede I'm being pedantic, and arguing what constitutes proof rather than substantive evidence. However, Chrismath provides a scenario that flaws the numbers as representing "proof".

It's impossible to say without having the numbers of a) number of complaints received by each bank, b) number of complaints paid out by each bank, c) number of complaints to FOS against each bank and d) number of complaints found in favour of the complainant. Given only c) and d)...which is all we've got from what I can see...you can't be sure of the situation. Take Black Horse, castigated for having 1009 complaints to the ombudsman, of which 99% upheld. Now, if they had 1020 complaints raised to them (ie statistic (a)), that is appalling and case proven because it shows at best 11 were dealt with in-house satisfactorily. However, if they had 1M complaints to them and paid out in 700k of them, then the fact that 1020 felt strongly enough to take it to the ombudsman and were proven correct is less damning of BH. Unlikely, I know, but for me that represents the difference between a statistical likelihood and "proof". You may well have those stats, but they weren't in the articles.

Alternatively, proof will be whistleblowers in the organisations concerned.

natweststaffmember

FOI request perhaps to FOS or FSA(am sure that complaint data is recorded and given to one or the other). In the evening my brain doesn't necessarily function enough to work out which one they do report to.

nembot

I have recorded calls from Barclays Customer Relation managers lying about how the Ombudman with deals with claims, they said after the 40 days it can be passed to them - but they will not take it further until the bank provides me personally with a final response in approx 7 months time, which is absolute rubbish.

The last call I made on Friday, told the CRM that I was recording halfway through the call, total change of attitude, excuses about that's what they have been told, then frantic typing and passed the complaint straight through to the case team.

I will be calling again on Monday to ask why the CRM's are being told to lie to their customers, shocking service from one of the big Banks!

Maybe i'll send a copy to Watchdog, Office of Fair Trading and Barclays CEO, see what they have to say about it...

Nathan_Spleen

bunking_off wrote: »

However, if they had 1M complaints to them and paid out in 700k of them, then the fact that 1020 felt strongly enough to take it to the ombudsman and were proven correct is less damning of BH.

Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

If Black Horse had 700,000 justified complaints against them they shouldn't be trading full stop.

Noble_Savage

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

If Black Horse had 700,000 justified complaints against them they shouldn't be trading full stop.

I think the point he was trying to make was that by looking just at FOS complaints, without looking at the overall volume of complaints received by a bank, you don't get the full picture. Someone earlier on in this thread (chrismaths) queried this.

And no-one's yet answered my question about the good guys. Who hasn't been generating complaints? There must be someoen out there!

dunstonh

Hello Chrismaths, long time no see....

On to subject.... The figures as published by the FOS are pretty pointless (as has been said on the other threads in different sections on the same subject). The only stat that can really be looked at in context is the FOS overule rate and how that compares to the average. The loan companies clearly have issues here.

However, the banks figures are largely in order of size. You would expect Lloyds to have the most.

Unless there is more data published in what the complaints are about then it doesnt mean much. There are closed insurance companies in the list. Are their complaints about advice issues on say endowments going back to the 80s and 90s or are they on product issues historically or servicing issues currently?

The data supply currently is too little to make many objective conclusions. The only thing you can really conclude is that the loan providers are being overly aggressive on their rejections and they wont get away with that. 90% FOS overrule is just asking for a fine from the FSA for poor complaints handling.

However, the other way, with complaints in the 10% overrule range could be that the company involved doesnt want to appear high on the list and gives in more and doesnt need complaints to go to the FOS. They could have far more complaints overall but cave in quicker and easier. It doesn't let you know that the company is any better to deal with at point of sale.

Who hasn't been generating complaints? There must be someoen out there!

The majority do not. Over 80% of IFAs haven't had a complaint according to the FOS. You cant really measure banks and insurance companies the same way as they will always get complaints. Its impossible for them not to. Also, if you put the number of complaints in context to all consumers that use financial organisations, then the vast majority are not complaining. When you consider the volume of transactions that take place, then things are not too bad. Certainly PPI and bank charges has created a volume higher than you would expect in normal times.

bunking_off

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

If Black Horse had 700,000 justified complaints against them they shouldn't be trading full stop.

No-one said that they had that many justified complaints. The point is that it's sometimes instructive to look at an extreme case (however outlandish) to show where a "proof" doesn't stand up, in order to demonstrate that what's being shown is a likelihood rather than proof.

I am being unashamedly pedantic...but false claims of proof is one of those things that wind me up, like people who claim to be dedicating 110% effort.

Nathan_Spleen

bunking_off wrote: »

No-one said that they had that many justified complaints..

I know that (?). If you had taken more than a cursory glance at my post you'd have spotted the 'If' at the beginning.

The reason the FOS haven't published data on the number of complaints made directly to firms is because they don't have it. It is not their jurisdiction - that being the domain of the FSA.

However the FSA are proposing to publish the figures on firm-specific complaints having already published industry-level data earlier this month: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2009/116.shtml