Banks to challenge ppi mis-selling - all claims on hold

debt55

notveryhappi. wrote: »

i haven't back tracked, you didn't read my comments correctly

just beacuse it is a first post does not mean the information is not correct, only time will tell

both the FSA and the FOS have said business as usual, and if you actually read what the banks are challenging, its not the claims themselves, they hold their hands up to them.. some have even stopped selling ppi..... but it is in fact retrospective claims.

so they have no need to put claims on hold, as they are not challenging the validity of them, they have told thousands of people up and down the country that they are upholding there claim... only some "have got goodwill gestures" ... therefore they hold their hands up.

do you understand that?

trip7dan

I know for a fact one has just like the original poster and I'm fairly certain all BBA members will.

Whether the FOS/FSA will stand for it remains to be seen.

notveryhappi.

debt55 wrote: »

both the FSA and the FOS have said business as usual, and if you actually read what the banks are challenging, its not the claims themselves, they hold their hands up to them.. some have even stopped selling ppi..... but it is in fact retrospective claims.

so they have no need to put claims on hold, as they are not challenging the validity of them, they have told thousands of people up and down the country that they are upholding there claim... only some "have got goodwill gestures" ... therefore they hold their hands up.

do you understand that?

i understand perfectly. I am not disputing what the FSA have said. The FSA clearly state that they expect PPI complaints to be dealt with as normal.

What I am saying is that a least one bank is to stop dealing with these complaints, effectively putting them on hold until the court hearing which is against what the FSA message says

wingwong

How can the banks put ALL cases on hold if the banks are complaining about retrospective rules from the fsa. Why cant we just resubmit our complaints based on the standards that were required at the time of the sale. It has never been acceptable to add PPI on without telling the customer -this happened all the time. If your not asking the bank to use retrospective guidlines to address your complaint how can they put it on hold under the new stance?

Can Martin and his team hunt down copies of the sales standards from gisc and the other regulatory bodies from the past decade so we can raise mis selling complaint around the standards from the time- Im quite confident the banks would have ignored these as they manage with everything else.

marshallka

wingwong wrote: »

How can the banks put ALL cases on hold if the banks are complaining about retrospective rules from the fsa. Why cant we just resubmit our complaints based on the standards that were required at the time of the sale. It has never been acceptable to add PPI on without telling the customer -this happened all the time. If your not asking the bank to use retrospective guidlines to address your complaint how can they put it on hold under the new stance?

Can Martin and his team hunt down copies of the sales standards from gisc and the other regulatory bodies from the past decade so we can raise mis selling complaint around the standards from the time- Im quite confident the banks would have ignored these as they manage with everything else.

The are all here in this thread and have been for some time
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1475623

The GISC code is also there

General Insurance Standards Council (GISC) (from 2001)

The General Insurance Standards Council (GISC) promised in its Code that its members would:

- act fairly and reasonably when we deal with you [the customer];

- make sure that all our general insurance services satisfy the requirements of this Private Customer Code;

- make sure all the information we give you is clear, fair and not misleading;

- avoid conflicts of interest or, if we cannot avoid this, explain the position fully to you;

- give you enough information and help so you can make an informed decision before you make a final commitment to buy your insurance policy.

notveryhappi.

wingwong wrote: »

How can the banks put ALL cases on hold if the banks are complaining about retrospective rules from the fsa. Why cant we just resubmit our complaints based on the standards that were required at the time of the sale. It has never been acceptable to add PPI on without telling the customer -this happened all the time. If your not asking the bank to use retrospective guidlines to address your complaint how can they put it on hold under the new stance?

Can Martin and his team hunt down copies of the sales standards from gisc and the other regulatory bodies from the past decade so we can raise mis selling complaint around the standards from the time- Im quite confident the banks would have ignored these as they manage with everything else.

The issue is not what has happened in the past, it is what the FSA want from December 2010.

Effectively from December 2010 they want, amongst other things, firms to investigate mis-selling of PPI and contact customers who might have been mis-sold and offer them a refund.

Currently a customer has to contact the bank themselves for their complaint to be investigated and most of these advised sale are upheld.

If the banks have to contact every customer sold ppi where the sales process is non-compliant, (such as single premiums sales and sales to the self employed) themselves it would cost them 3.2 billion between them

Hence the banks have now put ALL complaints on hold until the high court rule if the new FSA approach is legal.

The FSA have told them to continue to deal with complaints in the normal manor, however, the banks are refusing.We will see if the FSA can enforce this in due course.

marshallka

notveryhappi. wrote: »

The issue is not what has happened in the past, it is what the FSA want from December 2010.

Effectively from December 2010 they want, amongst other things, firms to investigate mis-selling of PPI and contact customers who might have been mis-sold and offer them a refund.

Currently a customer has to contact the bank themselves for their complaint to be investigated and most of these advised sale are upheld.

If the banks have to contact every customer sold ppi where the sales process is non-compliant, (such as single premiums sales and sales to the self employed) themselves it would cost them 3.2 billion between them

Hence the banks have now put ALL complaints on hold until the high court rule if the new FSA approach is legal.

The FSA have told them to continue to deal with complaints in the normal manor, however, the banks are refusing.We will see if the FSA can enforce this in due course.

And perhaps by the time this is all sorted out the FSA will be abolished anyway.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jun/16/mervyn-king-oversee-financial-regulation

And what will happen where Banks have offered "goodwill" payments in the past totalling much less (which lots did) than if the consumer had won misselling? Will they have to be reopened?

marshallka

Surely if the banks stop handling complaints (or some of them) right now then this would bring another complaint up also and that is "treating customers fairly". Consumers should be allowed to make complaints and the FSA give rules on complaints handling. IF they ignore your complaint then its just off to FOS and if they ignore FOS then usually this would mean the complaint is upheld in favour of the consumer most of the time. If they then ignore the adjudicators decision then this would mean going to the Ombudsman and once the Ombudsman has ruled then this is binding on both the consumer and the business as I thought? What is the point of having these rules if they mean nothing.

notveryhappi.

marshallka wrote: »

Surely if the banks stop handling complaints (or some of them) right now then this would bring another complaint up also and that is "treating customers fairly". Consumers should be allowed to make complaints and the FSA give rules on complaints handling. IF they ignore your complaint then its just off to FOS and if they ignore FOS then usually this would mean the complaint is upheld in favour of the consumer most of the time. If they then ignore the adjudicators decision then this would mean going to the Ombudsman and once the Ombudsman has ruled then this is binding on both the consumer and the business as I thought? What is the point of having these rules if they mean nothing.

The complaints would still be acknowledged and after 8 weeks the person making the compaint could still go to the FOS

However with in excess of 5000 PPI complaints being made a week to the banks the FOS is not going be able to handle and uphold each and every one of these complaints creating a stalemate situation which I guess the banks will use in their favour

The FSA can still fine the banks for not responding within 8 weeks however it is still going to be less than the estimated 3.2 billion they are expected to pay out under the new regulations due in December 2010

marshallka

notveryhappi. wrote: »

The complaints would still be acknowledged and after 8 weeks the person making the compaint could still go to the FOS

However with in excess of 5000 PPI complaints being made a week to the banks the FOS is not going be able to handle and uphold each and every one of these complaints creating a stalemate situation which I guess the banks will use in their favour

The FSA can still fine the banks for not responding within 8 weeks however it is still going to be less than the estimated 3.2 billion they are expected to pay out under the new regulations due in December 2010

Putting it like that then it could be looked at as a "set up" perhaps??