MSE News: Worst banks for complaint rejections named and shamed

cvd

Who hasn't been generating complaints?

The Coventry is not in the table at all even though it is larger than, for example, the West Bromwich.
All this means is that the number of complaints was less than 30 - this is the cutoff point.
The other building societies which are missing are all much smaller.

jamesd

MSE_Martin wrote: »

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

What the sources of the trouble are. We can probably correctly speculate that almost all of the cases are PPI given the prominence of Black Horse but we can't know that because we don't know the area of business.

It's not the fault of MSE, it's just rather unsatisfying that the numbers provided by the FOS don't give enough detail. The FOS can't do that for companies with low numbers of complaints but for those with more than a few hundred it should be possible to give some idea of the line of business if the FOS systems are capturing that information.

One risk with the FOS statistics. Apparently a case where a company makes a good will offer for customer service reasons will be recorded as an upheld complaint. While I doubt that it's the case, it could just be the case that Black Horse has a very high uphold rate because it usually made those sorts of customer service offer regardless of the merits of the case. That would cause the naming to be encouraging poor service rather than good service and might discourage companies from making those offers in the future, lest it cause them to look bad.

Still, we do know what most of the cases inevitably are, even though the statistics don't say it, and that the companies do need to start treating complainants better in those.

in4quids

I'm interested that most comments have been in the vein 'the banks aren't that bad'. What a tolerant bunch this is! I think what the figures actually hide is the angst and pain thousands of customers have been through making complaints that do eventually get sorted (so don't go to the Ombudsman) but not in a way that's positive.

My experience with BARCLAYS: I get a letter saying I have a pre-approved loan at a great rate. We decide to consolidate our credit card debt with the loan. The 'customer service rep' persuades me to take out income protection insurance as my partner's work is not that stable...it has a 7 day cooling off period. The next day I check my pension details and learn I do have income protection cover, so I try to contact Barclays to cancel the insurance. I get told I can't deal with the person who sold it to me, I have to speak to their insurance arm in Dublin, I call them and get put through to the people who underwrite Barclays insurance - an entirely different company! It takes me more than the 7 days to finally get onto someone who will actually try to resolve the issue, then they try to say the waiver period has passed. I start getting cranky and finally (some weeks later) they agree they were at fault BUT tell me I must reapply for the loan for some pathetic bureaucratic reason.

By this time I am so fed up I barely argue but when the 'new' loan is approved it is at more than double the interest rate of the original loan.

It took me all up nearly three months to get a resolution and I had to write to just about everyone at Barclays and threaten reference to the Financial Ombudsman before I got anywhere. God knows how many others have the same experience and just gave up. It didn't surprise me at all that Barclays had the most complaints.

gumbi

Glad to see somebody is on the case.....I've been banging on about this to anyone who will listen for months now!

I think the only way to redress the balance is to turn the situation on it's head....Rather than the poor consumer having to battle for years to get their money back whilst the banks throw more taxpayers money at legal eagles who try to wriggle out of the cases anyway they can, Upon a compliant being submitted to the FOS the disputed funds should either be collected by the FOS and held or paid directly back to the consumer and it should then be up to the bank to prove that they were in the right.

In effect, changing the burden of proof from the consumer to the banks...This would ensure that they would throw far more resource at the problem and think twice before rejecting complaints out of hand!!

Let's face it if I walk into a bank and defraud them and am subsequently caught out I don't get to keep the cash whilst the case is going through the courts....No I'm quite rightly banged up and my assests seized until I'm either sent down or proved innocent! What's the difference!!

Why then are consumers expected to suffer ongoing financial hardship whilst the banks employ lawyers at our expense to block the return of what is now almosr accepted as ill gotten gains!!:mad:

The banks have no fear.......and why should they?

• The FSA has no real teeth
• The Government has shown it will not let them fail

dunstonh

Upon a compliant being submitted to the FOS the disputed funds should either be collected by the FOS and held or paid directly back to the consumer and it should then be up to the bank to prove that they were in the right.

Problem with that is that the complaints upheld average is only around 32%.

Also, you run the risk of putting firms out of business by allowing even more fraudulent complaints than there currently is as individuals put in complaints to get a payout they can spend and then not be able to repay to the firm as they have no money.

Let's face it if I walk into a bank and defraud them and am subsequently caught out I don't get to keep the cash whilst the case is going through the courts....No I'm quite rightly banged up and my assests seized until I'm either sent down or proved innocent! What's the difference!!

That is not correct. As it currently stands, no prosecution takes place for making fraudulent claims. Firms are also not allowed to take action against consumers that make false claims. Although the subject has been raised at times and there are fears that if the number of try-it-on and fraudulent claims continue, then something may change on that front.

he banks have no fear.......and why should they?

• The FSA has no real teeth
• The Government has shown it will not let them fail

The FSA has teeth. It uses them frequently. However, rarely does it use them on a bank. Most cynics would say its because many of the top decision makers at the FSA are ex bankers.

gumbi

dunstonh wrote: »

Problem with that is that the complaints upheld average is only around 32%.

Also, you run the risk of putting firms out of business by allowing even more fraudulent complaints than there currently is as individuals put in complaints to get a payout they can spend and then not be able to repay to the firm as they have no money.



That is not correct. As it currently stands, no prosecution takes place for making fraudulent claims. Firms are also not allowed to take action against consumers that make false claims. Although the subject has been raised at times and there are fears that if the number of try-it-on and fraudulent claims continue, then something may change on that front.



The FSA has teeth. It uses them frequently. However, rarely does it use them on a bank. Most cynics would say its because many of the top decision makers at the FSA are ex bankers.

Interesting points....

{Also, you run the risk of putting firms out of business by allowing even more fraudulent complaints than there currently is as individuals put in complaints to get a payout they can spend and then not be able to repay to the firm as they have no money.}

If it's a choice between putting firms out of business or people out of their homes then I'm sorry but it's no choice; Also you're assuming that people are out to make fruadulent complaints...I can certainly think of far easeir ways of getting money from the banks that doesn't include 2 years of stress and letter writing!! As for spending the money and then being able to repay the firm, well my case against Picture went the the FOS and was then passed to the FSCS because they spent all their money and were then unable to repay me.....

The FSA is, As you rightly say, made up of ex-bankers and prospective peers so the chances are they all go to the same golf clubs and spend as much talking about the state of the greens as the state of the banks.

I know it sounds like a rant...and it probably is but after 2 years of letters to FOS, FSCS,FSA & MP's I've a complete sense of humour bypass on this subject.

Perhaps shoplifting would have been a better analogy than bank fraud but the principle is the same and I know that most bank employees are in the same boat as we are however can you honestly say that heads of big banks answer to anyone past their own shareholders and personal goals..?

We all need to remember that banks are there to serve us....not the other way round!:mad:

dunstonh

Also you're assuming that people are out to make fruadulent complaints...I can certainly think of far easeir ways of getting money from the banks that doesn't include 2 years of stress and letter writing!!

It is estimated that on average around a third of complaints are try-it-ons. In some areas the complaints are nearly all try it ons.

For example, some claims companies cold call people to tell them contracting out of serps was a mis-sale and they should be paid compensation. They pay £500 up front to the claims company who sends the template letter with all the reasons it may be mis-sold (not personalised or checked to be correct). Yet the FSA review in contracting out only found 1.5% of cases were mis-sold. They even issued a simple flow chart to tell you if you had. Yet thousands of complaints have gone in on the basis of mis-sale with those but only around 1.5% would have been. Endowments had a significant number of try-it-on, nothing to lose complaints.

I know you are focusing on one area and thats the bank charges but you need to remember that the FOS deals with all financial firms and some of your proposals are just not realistic to be applied to them.

gumbi

dunstonh wrote: »

It is estimated that on average around a third of complaints are try-it-ons. In some areas the complaints are nearly all try it ons.

For example, some claims companies cold call people to tell them contracting out of serps was a mis-sale and they should be paid compensation. They pay £500 up front to the claims company who sends the template letter with all the reasons it may be mis-sold (not personalised or checked to be correct). Yet the FSA review in contracting out only found 1.5% of cases were mis-sold. They even issued a simple flow chart to tell you if you had. Yet thousands of complaints have gone in on the basis of mis-sale with those but only around 1.5% would have been. Endowments had a significant number of try-it-on, nothing to lose complaints.

I know you are focusing on one area and thats the bank charges but you need to remember that the FOS deals with all financial firms and some of your proposals are just not realistic to be applied to them.

I don't claim to have all, or any of the answers however I do know that the Satus Quo is not sustainable and if people are trying it on it's probably because:

A) They feel ripped off
They just don't know how the finance system works
C) A&B