MSE News: Leaked letter reveals banks' dirty tricks on PPI reclaiming

Former_MSE_Dan

This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:

"Leaked letter reveals banks' dirty tricks on PPI reclaiming"

Read the full story:
Leaked letter reveals banks' dirty tricks on PPI reclaiming

dunstonh

I'm sorry but I cant see any dirty tricks here.

The banks position has been made clear publicly and they have put that position in writing to the FOS. There is nothing there to suggest any dirty tricks or any information we dont already know. Whether individuals agree with the banks position is a different matter but a difference of opinion on what they should do is not an indication of dirty tricks being played.

Alpine_Star

dunstonh wrote: »

The banks position has been made clear publicly and they have put that position in writing to the FOS.

It doesn't matter how clear they have made their 'position' to the FOS. What matters is that the banks are delinquent in their obligations to the FOS and their customers.

dunstonh

Alpine_Star wrote: »

It doesn't matter how clear they have made their 'position' to the FOS. What matters is that the banks are delinquent in their obligations to the FOS and their customers.

The article suggests that there is some dirty trick going on. That is not the same thing as what you are saying or what the information in the article suggests.

The banks have come out with their position. The letter is consistent with that position. Whether you agree with that position is irrelevant in the context of this thread or the letter being referred to. The bank reaffirming its position is not a dirty trick.

Alpine_Star

dunstonh wrote: »

The article suggests that there is some dirty trick going on. That is not the same thing as what you are saying or what the information in the article suggests.

The banks have come out with their position. The letter is consistent with that position. Whether you agree with that position is irrelevant in the context of this thread or the letter being referred to. The bank reaffirming its position is not a dirty trick.

I'm not sure that there is a reliable definition of 'dirty trick' and as such I'm not sure I'd use it myself. Using the term is really a matter of opinion but one which anyone is entitled to hold.

It would be difficult to argue that HSBC's non compliance is all above board and tickety boo though, regardless of how weak the BBA's case is against the FOS.

jamesd

dunstonh, the following appears to resolve the dirty tricks claim:

'The FSA's views on banks' practices are clear. A spokesman says: "Where a complaint against a respondent [such as a bank] is referred to the Ombudsman, the respondent must co-operate fully with the Ombudsman and comply promptly with any settlements or awards made by it."'

The regulator responsible for authorising HSBC to act as a bank in the UK has clearly indicated that they expect HSBC to work with the FOS. They aren't, not even to the point of helping the FOS to work out whether it's a simple mistake by HSBC in it's handling of an account that HSBC should correct.

What the FSA will do about a bank it regulates engaging in outright refusal to even try to work with the Ombudsman will be interesting to observe, but it's hardly the sort of conduct that I expect to see any bank or authorised person engaging in.

I'd be interested in knowing which authorised person gave the instruction to act in this way or is responsible for oversight of activities in this area and how the FSA acts towards them with regard to their carrying out of the activities for which they have been authorised.

An authorised person most surely can act in a way discouraged by the FSA but shouldn't expect the FSA to roll over and ignore it.

Comyface

dunstonh wrote: »

I'm sorry but I cant see any dirty tricks here.

The banks position has been made clear publicly and they have put that position in writing to the FOS. There is nothing there to suggest any dirty tricks or any information we dont already know. Whether individuals agree with the banks position is a different matter but a difference of opinion on what they should do is not an indication of dirty tricks being played.

I agree.

Plus the location of the apostrophe in the article heading leads us to believe it is more than one bank who are emplloying 'dirty tricks' yet the article only refers to HSBC.

Alpine_Star

Comyface wrote: »

I agree.

Plus the location of the apostrophe in the article heading leads us to believe it is more than one bank who are emplloying 'dirty tricks' yet the article only refers to HSBC.

Are you suggesting that other banks are ignoring BBA guidance?

Perish the thought.

An HSBC spokesman says: "Our processing of PPI complaints is in line with BBA guidance for members waiting for resolution to the judicial review.''

stevepett

It is a bright future we are headed for as the FSA loonies fight tooth and nail to hand over pensions and investment sales to the Bankaneers! (Unless you are rich, or an FSA director, of course!)

Steve

Crabman

Comyface wrote: »

Plus the location of the apostrophe in the article heading leads us to believe it is more than one bank who are emplloying 'dirty tricks' yet the article only refers to HSBC.

Perhaps you missed this in MSE News article:

The Ombudsman stresses numerous banks are creating the up to two year wait many PPI victims face by failing to provide sufficient information on cases, showing HSBC is far from alone.

I think that where businesses don't cooperate with the FOS, they [the FOS] should simply rule by default in favour of the consumer with the business having no right of appeal.

Let's also not forget the BBA exists to represent banks' interests. Abiding by their rules on PPI complaints does not necessarily equate with fair treatment of consumers.

FATBALLZ

I'm struggling to see what the 'dirty tricks' are here exactly. All it says is that HSBC want the ombudsman to wait for the outcome of legal proceedings, that doesn't seem like a trick, just a request.

Why is it that the whole communication has not been published? Given the absolute lack of credibility of the reporting on this website following the barrage of nonsense published over the last few months, it seems suspect that you've only quoted a couple of lines, this could be inferred to be because they are the only couple of lines that can be quoted out of context in order to make the banks look bad.