MSE News: banks fail to hit PPI complaints deadline

magpiecottage

Actually the money comes from financial institutions who pay large fees (partly earned from PPI amongst other things) whether they are guilty of misselling or not.

However as you say, MSE is not a consumer champion or paid by consumers to be one.

So Scotty1.7's rant is uncalled for as well as inaccurate.

Scotty1.7

Fair point then MSE is not the consumer champion, I took that to be the case based on other peoples post- Apologies for getting that incorrect.

And from my understanding of the FSA they were to act as the board of reason on behalf of the customers of the banks, to ensure the banks operated in a reasonable fashion

And Alpine Star I am fair from ungrateful for there work- It allows the average Joe to deal with the banks on issues of mis conduct and, as I've just written above, seek to make sure the banks operate in a reasonable fashion.

I just like alot of other people I would think, while we are very happy with the work they have done also feel they have only gone half way there- there could be alot more done on this with the way it is now being dealt.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

Actually the money comes from financial institutions who pay large fees (partly earned from PPI amongst other things) whether they are guilty of misselling or not.

I know.

But the source of the FSA's income is irrelevant to the consideration of who's money it was that was actually at stake.

In addition to the £1.04 million it cost the FSA in external legal costs alone in defending the action they risked picking up the BBA's & Nemo's costs should they have lost.

Derwent

It'd be interesting to see the statistics broken down between loans and credit cards. There is no reason for the lenders to delay on calculations for loans as they are very simple and take a couple of minutes to do. I can understand if credit card calculations are being delayed as it is a fairly complex and time consuming process.

src007

I can't see why Martin Lewis isn't a consumer champion? So he gets some money from advertising. I'm sure he could earn 100 times more, if he was more business minded.

97% of complaints resolved isn't actually that bad (resolved doesn't mean upheld). I can't believe that that statistic is made up.

Don't get me wrong, as I hate the banks more than most. But seeing how low they can stoop makes you only want to 'bash them' when its deserved and now isn't the time!

HSBC (or anyone else) not providing figures isn't the worst crime if they've agreed to settle up in principle. I would say at the moment they're upholding many complaints the FOS would reject.

Whilst the picture is good overall and most organisation are dealing with complaints correctly, it is a bit rich that some are congratuating themselves on resolving ALL complaints on hold. Every organisation must have some that slipped the net (I know Barclays have).

Blackhorse are only major organisation still massively at war with their customers. I can understand for the people unfairly rejected or the 3% not dealt with, will be rightly angry. But the bigger picture is much better at the moment.

Most banks are proactively looking at all loans a customer had with PPI, even if they only complained about one (as the FSA advise them to do).

magpiecottage

src007 wrote: »

I can't see why Martin Lewis isn't a consumer champion? So he gets some money from advertising. I'm sure he could earn 100 times more, if he was more business minded.

So could I - but both of us have chosen to do something different

97% of complaints resolved isn't actually that bad (resolved doesn't mean upheld).

Given the time available to recruit staff, train them on the banks' systems and get the cases looked at and responses into the post it is remarkable.

I can't believe that that statistic is made up.

I did some work for a firm with a "waiver" (a dispensation from the FSA to take longer than the usual 8 weeks) a few years ago. Such a waiver requires very detailed returns to be submitted which are likely to be subject to FSA audit. They can also come in and talk to ANY member of staff or contractor they choose to, so making figures up would be very high risk.

seeing how low they can stoop makes you only want to 'bash them' when its deserved and now isn't the time!

I'd agree with that.

HSBC (or anyone else) not providing figures isn't the worst crime if they've agreed to settle up in principle.

They only need to show how the figures have been arrived at once you have agreed to settle according to the methodology specified by the FSA.

I would say at the moment they're upholding many complaints the FOS would reject.

Almost certainly - and if you do not accept they are within their rights to withdraw the offer and look at your case again. If they do that and conclude that they did not need to uphold it they will not reinstate the offer.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

They only need to show how the figures have been arrived at once you have agreed to settle according to the methodology specified by the FSA.

FSA guidance specific to PPI is quite clear that the calculations should be included at the point any settlement is offered - and not, as you say, after an offer of settlement has been accepted:


App 3.9.4
The firm should make any offer of redress to the complainant in a fair and balanced way. In particular, the firm should explain clearly to the complainant the basis for the redress offered including how any compensation is calculated and, where relevant, the rescheduling of the loan, and the consequences of accepting the offer of redress.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/hb-releases/rel108/rel108DISP.pdf

magpiecottage

My understanding is that they ARE saying how the redress is calculated. It is in accordance with FSA instructions.

That is not the same as saying the calculation has to be included in the letter.

In any case, you and the FSA can jump up and down all you want but the reality is that the banks were not able to get enough people with the necessary skills to get a calculation done on every case and meet the deadline without the aid of a TARDIS.

Regardless of what has gone on in the past, they are doing their best to resolve this as quickly as possible.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

My understanding is that they ARE saying how the redress is calculated. It is in accordance with FSA instructions.

That is not the same as saying the calculation has to be included in the letter.

The guidance puts the onus on the bank to ''explain clearly'' how it is calculated. Without the figures and only to make some vague reference to ''FSA instructions'' without enclosing them or even giving any clue as to where they could be found is not capable of being a 'clear explanation' of the calculation.

They might be doing their best to resolve complaints now but the fact is that the Policy Statement defining their obligations was published a year ago.

magpiecottage

Sorry AlpineStar but I think your expectation is unrealistic.

The fact is that everybody accepting an offer along these lines knows they will receive fair redress without further argument as soon as they can (and it is in the banks' interest to do so because they do not want to pay interest at 8%).

And I still cannot see any alternative solution to the fact that it was not possible to get enough people to do the calculations within the timescale.

There are also threads on this board that show even when the figures are given consumers do not understand them anyway.