Financial Ombudsman Unbiased? I think not!

dalc87

dunstonh wrote: »

No she wasnt. HSBC would not employ a financial adviser to do a bank clerks role. It would be a complete waste of time and money.

Banks overuse the terms "adviser" and "manager". A customer services adviser carries no regulatory protection in the same was a financial adviser would. There have been calls made for the FSA to ban the use of the word adviser but individuals that are not real advisers and the title could mislead.



At the very best, you get 6 months full pay, 6 months half pay. So, unless the loan term was less than 12 months then I cant see a problem with having PPI.

You need to stop making the distinction between adviser and clerk. When Joe Public goes/calls somewhere and is greet by an 'Adviser' they do not scrutinise that persons job title. No one is calling them 'Financial Advisers' they are just calling them Adviser, which is how they introduce themselves.

Who calls their bank is greeted by a voice saying "Good Morning/Afternoon Mr/Mrs XYZ, My name is Jenny and I'll be your customer adviser today"?
Who calls their bank and is greeted by a voice saying "Good Morning/Afternoon Mr/Mrs XYZ, My name is Jenny and I am not an adviser I am a bank clerk/telesales agent, sagittarius, 26 years old, Sophie Kinsella fan, rock climbing enthusiast, vegan and I will not be trying to sell you things that you do not want today"?

It's unfair to keep picking on people's definition of adviser. If that is that persons job title then that is what the customer will think they are.

Also I think that a distinction needs to be made surrounding wanting, having and needing PPI.
The banks wants you to have it. It may be a good idea to have it, some may say that you need it but ultimately if you do not WANT it then the banks should not force you to have it.

Worldsnooker and I and many others quite clearly did not want it yet were pushed into buying it. That makes it a mis-sold policy and therefore we deserve to have our money back.
If we didn't take the PPI and we were struggling to make the repayments then more fool us but at least allow us the dignity of making our own decisions!

dunstonh

You need to stop making the distinction between adviser and clerk. When Joe Public goes/calls somewhere and is greet by an 'Adviser' they do not scrutinise that persons job title. No one is calling them 'Financial Advisers' they are just calling them Adviser, which is how they introduce themselves.

It is an important distinction as a financial adviser has a requirement to factfind and put the recommendations is writing. A customer services adviser has no such requirement. A financial adviser has sat qualifications and is authorised to give financial advice and is registered with the FSA. A customer services adviser has not sat possibly any qualifications and is not registered with the FSA.

Some bank clerks do have insurance only permissions (mortgage advisers are a good example) but they are not allowed to refer to themselves as financial advisers (nor are mortgage advisers).

The financial adviser gives you more consumer protection because the requirements are more stringent.

The point is that just because someone is using the title "manager" or "adviser" it does not make them a person of importance who can be trusted or feared. It does not mean they are an adviser in the financial sense of the word.

-BA-

Some strange responses to OP's post in this thread. There seems to be a view of a number of you that begrudgingly signing for PPI is your own fault when a bank is classed as misselling a product when it is optional but you are given no choice. The decision that should have been given is whether or not to take the PPI, NOT whether or not to take the PPI but you won't get the loan if you don't. That is why it is called misselling and that is the grounds of so many claims that are then down to the bank to prove.

To try and take the moral high ground and say, "You could have just walked out of the bank" is just plain insulting to people when you don't know ANY of the circumstances behind their application for loan. People get conned, people get divorced, people get made redundant, people overspend, people gamble. Some of these are clearly irresponsible but it is not your position to judge them and it is the banks responsibility to to sell their loan fairly. Now granted, the banks should do their homework and say that someone should show some evidence of how they would repay in the event of losing their primary income.

Applying for too many loans effects your credit score. You can't really shop around going through the entire range of loans to see which banks will and will not force PPI upon you.

The bottom line is that PPI is supposed to have been optional without condition. When banks chose to put conditions of availability of a loan, subject to taking out PPI, they broke the rules.

Now if they have recorded evidence to the contrary, that's a whole different ball game.

dunstonh

The bottom line is that PPI is supposed to have been optional without condition. When banks chose to put conditions of availability of a loan, subject to taking out PPI, they broke the rules.

The bottom line is prove it. That is the problem. We all know what tactics that banks use on a number of occasions. However, proving it is not easy and not all staff are devious and not all consumers are honest (some firms are getting as many as half of their complaints in from people who do not have PPI - so half their complaints are try-it-on consumers).

Its the four truths principle. What you said happened, what they said happened, what actually happened and, finally, what the evidence available shows happened and how it is interpreted. The latter is the key one.

-BA-

I believe the burden of proof is upon the banks. Why are these cases being upheld if that is not the case? Granted, the OPs hasn't but mine has and a number of others I have read, have been.

dunstonh

-BA- wrote: »

I believe the burden of proof is upon the banks. Why are these cases being upheld if that is not the case? Granted, the OPs hasn't but mine has and a number of others I have read, have been.

The reason is mostly lack of documentation. Just as it was with endowments previously. We were given an endowment stat based on real complaints that showed out of 1000 complaints, 225 resulted in redress paid. However, only 25 were mis-sold. The other 200 that were paid was because documentation was missing or inadequate.

Its also noticeable that MPPI complaints are far less successful. Mainly as most are bought under an advice process where there is a documentary record (such as a needs analysis or a demands and needs).

Where no documentation exists (within acceptable time limits) then its difficult to prove a position. Where documentation does exist then it makes it easier to reject where there is no other reason for mis-sale.

Claims companies have been very good on focusing in on areas where firms have been caught out with little or no supporting documentation. Mainly due to rules at the time not requiring them. This is also one of the reasons the banks have gone for the judicial review as they dont believe 2011 rules should be applied to cases sold under a different set of regulations (and they have a point.)

-BA-

The recently released pdf of the letter from FOS to the bank states that they should act on cases that have been upheld, that do not fall under the JR and that included missold policies.

dalc87

-BA- wrote: »

Some strange responses to OP's post in this thread. There seems to be a view of a number of you that begrudgingly signing for PPI is your own fault when a bank is classed as misselling a product when it is optional but you are given no choice. The decision that should have been given is whether or not to take the PPI, NOT whether or not to take the PPI but you won't get the loan if you don't. That is why it is called misselling and that is the grounds of so many claims that are then down to the bank to prove.

To try and take the moral high ground and say, "You could have just walked out of the bank" is just plain insulting to people when you don't know ANY of the circumstances behind their application for loan. People get conned, people get divorced, people get made redundant, people overspend, people gamble. Some of these are clearly irresponsible but it is not your position to judge them and it is the banks responsibility to to sell their loan fairly. Now granted, the banks should do their homework and say that someone should show some evidence of how they would repay in the event of losing their primary income.

Applying for too many loans effects your credit score. You can't really shop around going through the entire range of loans to see which banks will and will not force PPI upon you.

The bottom line is that PPI is supposed to have been optional without condition. When banks chose to put conditions of availability of a loan, subject to taking out PPI, they broke the rules.

Now if they have recorded evidence to the contrary, that's a whole different ball game.

Well said.

dalc87

dunstonh wrote: »

It is an important distinction as a financial adviser has a requirement to factfind and put the recommendations is writing. A customer services adviser has no such requirement. A financial adviser has sat qualifications and is authorised to give financial advice and is registered with the FSA. A customer services adviser has not sat possibly any qualifications and is not registered with the FSA.

Some bank clerks do have insurance only permissions (mortgage advisers are a good example) but they are not allowed to refer to themselves as financial advisers (nor are mortgage advisers).

The financial adviser gives you more consumer protection because the requirements are more stringent.

The point is that just because someone is using the title "manager" or "adviser" it does not make them a person of importance who can be trusted or feared. It does not mean they are an adviser in the financial sense of the word.

Whilst I and I am sure many others appreciate the distinction it is unfair of you to belittle people for calling people who are not FSA registered 'advisors'.

No one here is saying.... An FSA registered Financial Advisor mis-sold me PPI. They are merely putting a label on the person that they orginally dealt with and the label corresponds to that persons job title.

Get over yourself. Just because you are an IFA doesn't mean you should get so angsty about people calling bank employees 'advisor'. It's just a job title.
My wife is an Aerospace Engineer and she works for an energy consultancy. She used to get really wound up when "repair men" called themselves 'engineers'. When I asked her what her job title was she sheepishly said 'UK & Ire Group Manager" and when I said what are her team's job titles, she said "Energy Analysts". They are all engineers but have different job titles. Job titles are just labels. It doesn't bother her now.
You could make a distinction between Engineer and Technician but many do not. My point really is, when someone introduces themselves as your advisor or an engineer when really they are just 'clerks' or 'technicians' you don't really take the time to scrutinise their qualifications. They are there to do a job and that job has a title and when you reference that person you use their name or their title.
As an IFA how would you feel about spending all day processing loan applications? Yes there is a legal distinction but not to Joe Public.

Alpine_Star

dunstonh wrote: »

You are right. It is generally regarded as having a slight consumer bias as it doesn't just take into account law but also fairness to the consumer.

Generally regarded by who?

It is true that they take into consideration what is fair and reasonable but this applies equally to the seller and there is nothing the FOS have ever said that suggests it doesn't.

I'm afraid this is yet another example of you presenting opinion as fact.