MSE News: Banks bid to block PPI compensation

di3004

Hi LL

Its said on the other thread that Lloyds is the one bank that is to stop investigating ppi complaints I think from 7th October, take a looksie here, but nothing in concrete evidence though.....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/37364084#Comment_37364084

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2780776

Di
X

di3004

We did assume this didn't we? (that it would be Lloyds)!

liberty_lily

di3004 wrote: »

We did assume this didn't we? (that it would be Lloyds)!

We sure did Di - they always seem to be at the forefront of these things............:(

Luckily I only have LTSB one left (with FOS), but you have more don't you?

With regards to Norton, having dragged out refunding for this long, I reckon they'll delight in any further excuse - legitimate or not - to not pay at all :mad:

LL x

FATBALLZ

Good, lets hope they put a stop to this reclaiming BS.

Hopefully then people will take responsibility for their actions instead of using the convenient 'evil banks' scapegoat... oh wait, I'm dreaming again.

notveryhappi.

debt55 wrote: »

FSA/FOS have said claims should continue and after 8 weeks... if no result from the lender... bang it to the FOS

they will investigate.. and they uphold nigh on 90% of claims

dont let the banks off the hook!

The FOS can hardly cope now never mind if they get any extra 5000 case per week

di3004

liberty_lily wrote: »

We sure did Di - they always seem to be at the forefront of these things............:(

Luckily I only have LTSB one left (with FOS), but you have more don't you?

With regards to Norton, having dragged out refunding for this long, I reckon they'll delight in any further excuse - legitimate or not - to not pay at all :mad:

LL x

Yes that is right.


Good luck with yours LL, I'm sure the FOS will resolve this one for you.;)

Di
XX

peterbaker

dunstonh wrote: »

The number of try-it-on and fraudulent complaints is across the board.

Indulge us a little further DH, and tell us what the majority of these try-it-on and fraudulent claims look like, please.

Anyone who bought single premium PPI at loan point of sale from the banks for example and who has not had a successful and meaningful claim paid for something, has got a valid PPI premium refund and compensation claim haven't they? That is unless it can be shown that when they bought it they were in fact an insurance industry all-rounder that fully understood PPI so not only understood the numerous bad points about the selling organisation's sales culture, the pricing itself, the charging structure, the arbitrary interest rates applied to the single premiums, the questionable "in-house/offshore" nature/domiciling of the underwriters, the ridiculously high profit margins being achieved, much contributed to by the likely bloody-mindedness from everyone involved if a claim was subsequently made etc.etc. I think there are a handful of us who fit the latter category, who have always been willing to speak up to say good riddance to bad rubbish, and of course we weren't daft enough to buy PPI on the proposed basis ourselves. Apart from those who actually managed to get a successful and meaningful claim paid, that leaves no-one without a valid opportunity to claim in my book, and good luck to them.

To go some way to prove the arbitrariness of the pricing and the likelihood of success of a claim, why is it that we are over two years from the acknowledged start of the credit crunch with people losing and jobs left right and centre, generally only to be replaced with short-term lower paid start again at the bottom type roles, yet the typical PPI base "premium" rates set by the banking and insurance cartels in the 1990s have not been touched to reflect those higher risks of losing your job and keeping a new one for example? That's because they have about as much relevance to a "correct" rate as a CCE €1.25/£1 rate ever did to the same sort of unsuspecting punters on their 2010 holidays.

Those that have followed your mainly extremely helpful and eloquent responses to complex pensions questions and the like know that your views are sound, but I really think you have a flippin' cheek suggesting that 'try-it-on' and 'fraud' are the right phrases to describe good working people in their tens of thousands who are simply exercising a long-overdue opportunity to redress the balance a bit.

What you are witnessing is something of a simmering revolution against financial services institutions in these forums. Had you not realised?

Read that open letter the 17 Financial Services chairmen and CEO's put their names to on the 28 September in the FT, with renewed promises to treat customers fairly and to ensure their companies' cultures lead and reflect this right from the top, then tell me again who is trying it on and who is fraudulent.

debt55

peterbaker wrote: »

Indulge us a little further DH, and tell us what the majority of these try-it-on and fraudulent claims look like, please.

Anyone who bought single premium PPI at loan point of sale from the banks for example and who has not had a successful and meaningful claim paid for something, has got a valid PPI premium refund and compensation claim haven't they? That is unless it can be shown that when they bought it they were in fact an insurance industry all-rounder that fully understood PPI so not only understood the numerous bad points about the selling organisation's sales culture, the pricing itself, the charging structure, the arbitrary interest rates applied to the single premiums, the questionable "in-house/offshore" nature/domiciling of the underwriters, the ridiculously high profit margins being achieved, much contributed to by the likely bloody-mindedness from everyone involved if a claim was subsequently made etc.etc. I think there are a handful of us who fit the latter category, who have always been willing to speak up to say good riddance to bad rubbish, and of course we weren't daft enough to buy PPI on the proposed basis ourselves. Apart from those who actually managed to get a successful and meaningful claim paid, that leaves no-one without a valid opportunity to claim in my book, and good luck to them.

To go some way to prove the arbitrariness of the pricing and the likelihood of success of a claim, why is it that we are over two years from the acknowledged start of the credit crunch with people losing and jobs left right and centre, generally only to be replaced with short-term lower paid start again at the bottom type roles, yet the typical PPI base "premium" rates set by the banking and insurance cartels in the 1990s have not been touched to reflect those higher risks of losing your job and keeping a new one for example? That's because they have about as much relevance to a "correct" rate as a CCE €1.25/£1 rate ever did to the same sort of unsuspecting punters on their 2010 holidays.

I think you have a flippin' cheek suggesting that 'try-it-on' and 'fraud' are the right phrases to describe good working people in their tens of thousands who are simply exercising a long-overdue opportunity to redress the balance a bit.

What you are witnessing is something of a simmering revolution against financial services institutions in these forums. Had you not realised?

Read that open letter the 17 Financial Services chairmen and CEO's put their names to on the 28 September in the FT, with renewed promises to treat customers fairly and to ensure their companies' cultures lead and reflect this right from the top, then tell me again who is trying it on and who is fraudulent.

top bombing :T:T:T:T

dunstonh

Indulge us a little further DH, and tell us what the majority of these try-it-on and fraudulent claims look like, please.

Template letters typically. Usually listing a load of things that are not truthful or relevant. e.g. someone claiming they are self employed when they are actually employed. Or claiming they had sufficient funds available so they didnt need it (whereas in reality they dont the further advance was debt consolidation because they had no savings).

A significant number are from claims companies.

I really think you have a flippin' cheek suggesting that 'try-it-on' and 'fraud' are the right phrases to describe good working people in their tens of thousands who are simply exercising a long-overdue opportunity to redress the balance a bit.

I didnt say they all were. If someone has been mis-sold then they should complain and have every right to. However, that doesnt mean scumbags should try-it-on and lie to get money out the other party.

The problem with the try-it-on complaints is they they slow the system down so the genuine complaints take longer and the complaints handler at the other end is likely to take a more cynical view if the letter in front of them is the 20th identical template letter they have seen that week from a claims company that is known to be dodgy.

peterbaker

Ah, yes, claims companies - your last paragraph may indeed contain a scumbag angle I hadn't thought of, i.e. the vultures who continue to paint the same circles in the sky irrespective of the nature of the carrion, and eventually fly away bellies-full to the next 'misselling' junket

Then again, they do perhaps clean up in more ways than one ... agreed no-one really likes them, and I am beginning to accept they are just part feature part symptom of the ugly financial services landscape we all have to deal with daily now.