MSE News: Major delays in Ombudsman PPI rulings

tifo

last year, i settled several PPI complaints via the FOS after 2.5 years .... many of these were registered in mid 2007 and it was Dec 2009 before the bank settled .... the reason for the delay was (1) the FOS had lots of cases (for 1 year) and (2) they were waiting for the bank to respond (for 1 year) (after it passed to an Adjudicator).

In one case, the offered to settle (after 1.5 years) then after I accepted the FOS offer the bank refused to make payment saying they did not sell me the PPI policy (they took over admin of the credit card). I then had to wait 1 further year while the FOS chased the second bank. There was no explanation why the settlement was offered and why it was not legally binding after i'd accepted it and why i then had to wait for the second bank to make an offer. And then this bank refused to pay the £100 award for 'distress and inconvenience'. In the end i settled rather than wait again for this amount.

roonaldo

I work at FOS. I have to call consumers to discuss the complaint on every case, it is shocking the amount (far more than 0.4%!!) that are frivilous try it on complaints. I call and say to consumer "why do you feel the PPI was mis-sold?". They often reply "the CMC told me it was" or "dont know". I would estimate from experience perhaps 50% are try it ons.

Another shocking thing is the amount of complaint FOS gets where no PPI was even sold and even consumers complaining that they were not sold PPI. Shocking.

Alpine_Star

It's difficult to reconcile your '50% of cases are ''try on' estimate with the published 89% uphold rate.

If fraudulent and try-it-on cases were genuinely a significant factor in delays to resolving justifiable PPI complaints then the FOS would say so rather than blaming it on underestimating the volume/staffing ratios.

oakhouse13

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtreasy/c430-iv/c43001.htm

There's quite a lot in the FOS's evidence to the Treasury Select Committee about so called frivolous claims and it was asked to write to the committee with more figures.

Alpine_Star

oakhouse13 wrote: »

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtreasy/c430-iv/c43001.htm

There's quite a lot in the FOS's evidence to the Treasury Select Committee about so called frivolous claims and it was asked to write to the committee with more figures.

Yes I watched this on Parliament Live. I think it's important to draw the distinction between frivolous cases and frivolous telephone inquiries which was the clarification made in response to Q205.

oakhouse13

I would like the figures though on how many calls are received along the lines of I want to make a complaint, about what, I don't know claim company told me to ring and make a complaint.

I want to pay for a system focussed on those in financial hardship. I was pleased that the committee is very clear that all consumers pay, this service is not magically provided free.

Alpine_Star

oakhouse13 wrote: »

I would like the figures though on how many calls are received along the lines of I want to make a complaint, about what, I don't know claim company told me to ring and make a complaint.

I want to pay for a system focussed on those in financial hardship. I was pleased that the committee is very clear that all consumers pay, this service is not magically provided free.

I totally agree.

The FOS is due to be subject to the Freedon of Information Act from October 2011 so you could ask them then.

oakhouse13

OK, but the FOS will bill those hours somehow and then I will be making work that all consumers have to pay for.

Alpine_Star

oakhouse13 wrote: »

OK, but the FOS will bill those hours somehow and then I will be making work that all consumers have to pay for.

I would have thought this is a standard piece of management information that would be readily obtainable.

I know that categorising enquiries by subject matter and outcome is routinely recorded by the OFT.

Annisele

A friend of mine works for a company that doesn't sell PPI (and has never sold it in the past).

She still has to deal with "PPI" complaints from third party complaints handlers. She'll ring up the policyholder, ask them what they thought the policy was for, and they'll say "it's to pay off my mortgage if I die, but <insert name of third party> says I can get all my money back if I make a complaint". She'll then explain over the phone that the policy is a DTA (or LTA or whatever it actually is), and then reject the complaint on the basis that the policy is not PPI, and her employer couldn't possibly have mis-sold PPI because it has never sold a single policy.

A few of those complaints will end up with FOS. They generally won't be categorised as PPI complaints - because the product sold wasn't actually PPI - but they won't count as frivolous or vexatious either.

That means that the statements "50% of cases are try-ons" and "89% of cases are upheld" aren't necessarily incompatible, as a lot of the try-ons aren't actually recorded as PPI complaints.