MSE News: FSA to re-open 185,000 rejected debt insurance claims

marshallka

Was this then the "wider implications" done and dusted now. Is this all they are doing cause if it is its not enough. They needed to widen FOS jurisdictions in that FOS can handle older complaints etc. I know they are trying for the "insurer" etc but seems to be taking forever and makes me wonder if anything will actually come of this one. From what I was told there is a lot of legal jargon that needs to be got through. I am glad they have done this though but just not enough in my eyes. People have suffered just the same and although the FSA is now saying to redress all people that have complained its not including older unregulated complaints.:mad:

di3004

The Editors notes from the FSA site here:


Notes for editors

1. The firms reviewing face-to-face Single Premium Unsecured Personal Loan PPI sales represent more than 40% of gross written premiums in that sector. They have agreed to review past sales of these made since 1 July 2007. If material detriment is found, firms will review all such sales made since January 2005. The FSA has agreed the format and key messages of the communication to be sent to customers in this exercise, namely:
   • the FSA has identified specific market problems with the selling of PPI;
   • on reviewing these problems as described in the letter, if the customer thinks they may be affected they should contact the firm;
   • depending on what is found, the customer may be entitled to redress; and
   • responding to the letter will not have a negative impact on the customers’ loan or their ability to obtain a loan in the future.
2. The FSA’s work focused on the sale of Single Premium Unsecured Personal Loan PPI as this was identified by the FSA and FOS as the highest risk sector for causing detriment to consumers. It is also the largest PPI product area, with the highest penetration rates.
3. The FSA has taken action against 22 firms over poor PPI sales practices. This includes the FSA’s largest fine in the retail sector on Alliance & Leicester which was fined £7m in October 2008 for serious failings in its telephone PPI sales.
4. The FSA has also published an open letter to eight trade associations setting out its concern that specific deficiencies in assessing PPI complaints are arising from firms' failure to consider appropriately PPI sale standards. To assist firms in their PPI complaint handling, the letter provides examples of common sales failings (which we also expect firms to avoid in their future sales).
5. On average, firms have rejected around 60% of the PPI complaints they have received, but some firms have rejected nearly all. Of the 16% of complaints which go on to the FOS, over 80% are overturned in the consumer’s favour.
6. In February, the FSA sent a Dear CEO Letter to the chief executives of firms selling single premium PPI with unsecured personal loans, requesting they stop selling the products by 29 May 2009. To the FSA’s knowledge, this product is no longer being sold.
7. The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has four 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; and fighting financial crime.
8. The FSA aims to promote efficient, orderly and fair markets, help retail consumers achieve a fair deal and improve its business capability and effectiveness

di3004

You may also find this interesting too, some info on

"Complaints about PPI Policies sold before 14 Jan 2005 (N3).

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/cp/cp09_23.pdf

pinknico

I know someone on here said there was no way they could widen the FOS jurisdiction to prior what it was already, but maybe the FSA can make firms look into complaints as fairly as if they could go to the FOS, not just say not covered by the FOS get lost?

di3004

pinknico wrote: »

I know someone on here said there was no way they could widen the FOS jurisdiction to prior what it was already, but maybe the FSA can make firms look into complaints as fairly as if they could go to the FOS, not just say not covered by the FOS get lost?

Yeah you have made a good point here Pinknico, if that was the case and they did say get lost, then where is fairness to the customer with that?:T;).

pinknico

"It also wants to ensure those missold single premium cover, a particular type of PPI where the cost for the term of the loan is paid upfront and therefore incurs interest, get their money back. "

This surely means all FSCS single premium cases should be successful?

di3004

pinknico wrote: »

"It also wants to ensure those missold single premium cover, a particular type of PPI where the cost for the term of the loan is paid upfront and therefore incurs interest, get their money back. "

This surely means all FSCS single premium cases should be successful?

Yes totally agree Pinknico :T:T

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

You may also find this interesting too, some info on

"Complaints about PPI Policies sold before 14 Jan 2005 (N3).

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/cp/cp09_23.pdf

All I can find is about the firms being GISC members and nothing so far about "unregulated at the time complaints"... if not GISC members....am I missing something here???

marshallka

pinknico wrote: »

I know someone on here said there was no way they could widen the FOS jurisdiction to prior what it was already, but maybe the FSA can make firms look into complaints as fairly as if they could go to the FOS, not just say not covered by the FOS get lost?

It was stereo mike that said that I think.

How can the FSA "make" firms look into complaints as fairly as they could? Even ones that are having to go to FOS are looked into fairly. I would not trust any of these firms to do anything right if they can actually get out of paying. When they do give a detailed response to a sale they mostly say "get lost" at the end. Then according to the FSA they have acted fairly half the time.

What I have been fighting for and will CONTINUE to fight for is pre regulation complaints. They are sold exactly the same but we had no protection and will continue to have no protection from anyone. FOS should be able to apply "Law" into complaints the same as a judge would do. That would widen issues then...;)

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

All I can find is about the firms being GISC members and nothing so far about "unregulated at the time complaints"... if not GISC members....am I missing something here???

This had frozen on me Marshallka when I was scrolling down the page, so did not manage to get through it, so posted the link instead and just in case there was anything useful, but doubt if your missing anything then.;)