MSE News: Guest Comment: PPI was mis-sold but isn't bad

~Brock~

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The FOS is funded entirely by the financial services industry - meaning zero tax.

The cost of FOS complaints pops back up somewhere dont you worry......be it product pricing, charges etc :money:

magpiecottage

~Brock~ wrote: »

The cost of FOS complaints pops back up somewhere dont you worry......be it product pricing, charges etc

Absolutely! All this protection which society demands (or the FSA says we demand) comes at a price - and those costs include paying for the FSA and FOS to have plush offices in Canary Wharf, one of the most expensive places in the world.

Do not fool yourself into thinking it is free.

src007

Berryhillrunner wrote: »

Alliance and Leicester headlined personal loan rates at 4.9% APR in 2008. BOE rate is now the lowest ever but personal loan rates are much higher - no insurance income to lenders means banks earn less so interest rates go up i.e. you pay more for a £5000 loan etc.

Is this such a bad thing? Knowing what you're paying for from the outset? Why should loans be subsidised by insurance? Isn't it better that someone can compare loan rates at the real cost, rather than being mis-led into buying a 'cheap loan' which is actually much more expensive because of the insurance.

Berryhillrunner wrote: »

there's nothing for nothing - move on Britain!

If you were paying £100 per month to ''insure'' payments of £190 per month, with another five years of payments yet to be made, would you simply say ''never mind, move on''. :rotfl::rotfl:

Also, I agree that the media hysteria is doing no one any good. Another fallout from the BBA starting a stupid legal challenge to block fair complaint handling. A further erosion of trust causing many additional complaints for businesses that have done nothing wrong.

There're many people working in finance that offer a brilliant service. The banks are crooks and have alot to answer for.

The_Loan_Ranger

marshallka wrote: »

Where you state "only those missold". The banks are making things really difficult for genuine complainants now from even making a complaint. There was never any problems before the JR of people obtaining data but suddenly when it suits there is. This is just to hinder people and its not even giving them a chance. Its not right, its not proper and its certainly not fair.

Yes insurance can be good. I have pet insurance and its been a godsend to us this year with our dog who developed diabetes and the claims have been very straight forward. Its the way that it was bundled into loans that is not good as only about 20% of claims actually paid out anyway. Does that not say something? If you think how much the banks made in the 80's with selling insurance like this and most likley missold just the same as today (even the FSA say that in their 10/12 policy statement when they mention pre 2005 sales) then they are getting away lightly. Very lightly. I wish someone would give me a few million just to get me started. They will never have to repay that.

Where you say about not buying from a bank because you could get it cheaper elsewhere some had no choice as it was conditional to their loans.............or so they said.

Nice generalisation; what about banks and finance providers who offered genuine PPI's that wer not 'bundled into loans'? Ask the FOS what they think about the hysteria generated by the media drumming up stories with half-baked info. insinuating how all PPI's are 'bad' AND ASK CUSTOMERS WHO WERE GENUINELY MIS-SOLD WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT HAVING TO WAIT 6, 9, 12 months for FOS to get round to allocating their cases due to this appalingly bad info and advice being spouted out by people who don't have a clue which has resulted in every maggot on the planet coming out of the woodwork to make spourios and totally unfounded claims:mad:

marshallka

The_Loan_Ranger wrote: »

Nice generalisation; what about banks and finance providers who offered genuine PPI's that wer not 'bundled into loans'? Ask the FOS what they think about the hysteria generated by the media drumming up stories with half-baked info. insinuating how all PPI's are 'bad' AND ASK CUSTOMERS WHO WERE GENUINELY MIS-SOLD WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT HAVING TO WAIT 6, 9, 12 months for FOS to get round to allocating their cases due to this appalingly bad info and advice being spouted out by people who don't have a clue which has resulted in every maggot on the planet coming out of the woodwork to make spourios and totally unfounded claims:mad:

Its not my fault about the media and this site. Martin goes on about PPI and this is called the PPI reclaiming discussion. I do not decide who is missold and who is not and I also have no idea of these maggots on the planet coming out of the woodwork.

If a firm has sold PPI correctly then they are not going to get complaints. I did not say that all insurance is bad did I and i did not generalise on all insurance.

I agree with the advice on this forum. I had some "conflicting/bad" advice myself in the past but I do realise that posts on here can be from anyone. I can either listen to it or ignore it i guess. There are far worse sites than this one TBH. Just like yourself in your posts, anyone can make an opinion.

magpiecottage

marshallka wrote: »

If a firm has sold PPI correctly then they are not going to get complaints.

If only that were true. Sadly, whilst there are crooked providers and advisers there are also crooked complainants and claims management companies.

Alpine_Star

The_Loan_Ranger wrote: »

Nice generalisation; what about banks and finance providers who offered genuine PPI's that wer not 'bundled into loans'? Ask the FOS what they think about the hysteria generated by the media drumming up stories with half-baked info. insinuating how all PPI's are 'bad' AND ASK CUSTOMERS WHO WERE GENUINELY MIS-SOLD WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT HAVING TO WAIT 6, 9, 12 months for FOS to get round to allocating their cases due to this appalingly bad info and advice being spouted out by people who don't have a clue which has resulted in every maggot on the planet coming out of the woodwork to make spourios and totally unfounded claims:mad:

I wonder what the FOS think about the ''hysteria'' demonstrated by references to ''magots'' coming out the woodwork, THE USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS TO OVER EMPHSISE A POINT and the inclusion of 'mad' icons displaying an inability to control one's temper?

dunstonh

If a firm has sold PPI correctly then they are not going to get complaints.

It doesn't work that way. I have mentioned before that my compliance company have said that around 30% of the complaints they are getting are from people that don't even have the product being complained about. So, that indicates a third of their complaints are from try-it-on/fraudulent consumers.

In my time I have had three complaints. All three were fraudulent try-it-ons. One tried to make out I had sold a product and gave wrong advice. Yet the year it was taken out, I was still in school. Yet they had a perfect recollection of what I said to them. Another continued to pay a pension after they ceased to be eligible and tried to get their money back because I didnt tell them they had ceased to be eligible. They ceased to be eligible two years after I saw them and my documented records showed I had a copy of her payslip and my review notes confirmed I had checked eligibility and warned about future eligibility if a hypothetical career break was to take place. Those notes on an updated factfind were signed by her. I didnt even set up that pension or any other product and the person didnt employ me for advice (they didnt want to pay for it). It was just a one visit that led to nothing. Yet she wanted me to pay thousands because of the HMRC fine. The third one was more complicated but basically they created a whole new story of events. They had got into debt and were desperate for money so they saw a complaint as an easy way to make money. However, my audit trail blew it out of the water (plus what I had done was better than what they had before). That complaint used a third party claims company.

It does affect good firms. That last one really hit me hard personally as it was a person that I would never believe could complain and had no reason to. There was frequent and good communication. Everything was doing what it was expected and known to do. The complaint came out of the blue and was effectively a demand for money. However, it just shows that when people get desperate, they will do things to hurt others if they can make money out of it.

I think its important to be clear that where a consumer has been a victim of wrongdoing they should have everything put right. However, you cannot assume that consumers are angels and companies are bad. There are bad consumers just as there are bad companies. Large firms, like bank, just absorb the complaints and deal with them (often badly but its not personal). Small local firms get hit with complaints and they do affect the people personally. The costs are higher pro-rata for small firms.

marshallka

dunstonh wrote: »

It doesn't work that way. I have mentioned before that my compliance company have said that around 30% of the complaints they are getting are from people that don't even have the product being complained about. So, that indicates a third of their complaints are from try-it-on/fraudulent consumers.

In my time I have had three complaints. All three were fraudulent try-it-ons. One tried to make out I had sold a product and gave wrong advice. Yet the year it was taken out, I was still in school. Yet they had a perfect recollection of what I said to them. Another continued to pay a pension after they ceased to be eligible and tried to get their money back because I didnt tell them they had ceased to be eligible. They ceased to be eligible two years after I saw them and my documented records showed I had a copy of her payslip and my review notes confirmed I had checked eligibility and warned about future eligibility if a hypothetical career break was to take place. Those notes on an updated factfind were signed by her. I didnt even set up that pension or any other product and the person didnt employ me for advice (they didnt want to pay for it). It was just a one visit that led to nothing. Yet she wanted me to pay thousands because of the HMRC fine. The third one was more complicated but basically they created a whole new story of events. They had got into debt and were desperate for money so they saw a complaint as an easy way to make money. However, my audit trail blew it out of the water (plus what I had done was better than what they had before). That complaint used a third party claims company.

It does affect good firms. That last one really hit me hard personally as it was a person that I would never believe could complain and had no reason to. There was frequent and good communication. Everything was doing what it was expected and known to do. The complaint came out of the blue and was effectively a demand for money. However, it just shows that when people get desperate, they will do things to hurt others if they can make money out of it.

I think its important to be clear that where a consumer has been a victim of wrongdoing they should have everything put right. However, you cannot assume that consumers are angels and companies are bad. There are bad consumers just as there are bad companies. Large firms, like bank, just absorb the complaints and deal with them (often badly but its not personal). Small local firms get hit with complaints and they do affect the people personally. The costs are higher pro-rata for small firms.

So going by your comment above about the 30% not having PPI, the other 70% did and have a right to complain (everyone has that right) and if found to be missold then things should be put right. Surely the complaints data at FOS is proof that lots of people have been missold and it was proved by the Citizens Advice and OFT that the "paying out" claims ratio was low for single premium PPI. (if that is the correct terminolgy which I have noted you have to use just lately on here or you get thought of as a try it on!!!).

I was not a one for "assuming" everyone was missold on this site but since my own personal experiences I found that maybe I was more like yourself and thinking that it was getting a case of "try it ons" BUT I should not have ever judged. I have no idea of peoples personal circumstances (neither does anyone on here) and have to admit I was quite "negative" at some time when people posted on here. (admittedly I was wrong to have been). I have had people being "quite negative" back though......

You say you have only had 3 complaints and one was when you were at school (I honestly thought you were retired dunstonh lol) so you must be proud of what you have acheived and that you are not tarred with the same brush. Some complainants get tarred as a "try it on" on this site and that again is not fair.

I do not agree with single premiums added to loans. I never had and never will do (Just my view). I DO think they were profit making firstly and foremost and not sold (most of the time) in the best interests of the consumer. I had no idea of how they worked and I am sure most of the people on here did not either unless you worked in finance. (even with closely reading terms and conditions!).

Not everyone is bad dunstonh that comes onto here.

Anyone can post on here and anyone can have what they want as their signature. In fact we have no idea if their signature is actually true (we would be fools to believe just because someone has "Doctor someone or other".. written below they were in fact a doctor).... we can only ask and find out for ourselves. No-one KNOWS everything dunstonh. We all learn as we go along. No-one has to listen to posts and advice from here. I have had bad advice from here in the past TBH but I should have known better shouldn't I.

dunstonh

So going by your comment above about the 30% not having PPI, the other 70% did and have a right to complain (everyone has that right) and if found to be missold then things should be put right.

Just having the product isnt reason for complaint. I dont actually know what the complaint uphold rate for those is. However, i do know that my compliance company are rejecting PPi complaints if its paid monthly, the person was eligible and had a financial need. However, remember that these are advisers. So, MPPI would be the product in question there. Not loan or credit card.

Surely the complaints data at FOS is proof that lots of people have been missold

Data has to be placed in context. There are around 30,000 IFAs (its thought somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 are active. There are millions of transactions placed through IFAs each year. Yet IFAs have little over 3,000 complaints with the FOS last year. The FOS themselves admit that a good chunk of those relate to a one firm and it was over their handling or a purchase of a business which got messy and is in fact has part of it in the high court at the moment. So, do you look at those 3,000 complaints and say that its evidence of mis-sales (especially as that isnt the upheld number but just the complaint number).

You say you have only had 3 complaints and one was when you were at school (I honestly thought you were retired dunstonh lol) so you must be proud of what you have acheived and that you are not tarred with the same brush. Some complainants get tarred as a "try it on" on this site and that again is not fair.

The product was put in place whilst I was at school. The complaint came in obviously many years later. I am well under the average age for an IFA. I was more pleased when I had no complaints at all. The first two have long dropped off and one wasnt even classed as a complaint. The last one really hit me hard. I couldn't work effectively for a month. I was second guessing myself as to what i was doing right or wrong whilst the complaint was being looked at. I couldn't sleep at night It was better when it was rejected but it was not an experience you want to have. This is what those making try-it-on complaints don't realise. If its a faceless firm, it isnt really affecting anyone personally. If its a small firm then it is. That complaint still has to be disclosed on my PI cover and even though it was rejected, my premiums are higher.

Sometimes those that post a balancing view and point out obvious try-it-ons are targeted on these boards as being anti-consumer.

In the last few days, there have been some harsh posts made against "possible" try-it-ons that may be genuine. However, there are also other threads that have had people post that they should still complain even where there is no wrongdoing.

I prefer to stick with the balance. If its wrong, complain. If you are trying it on then sod off.