MSE News: banks fail to hit PPI complaints deadline

tifosi

Only just noticed this part of your post -

magpiecottage wrote: »

Paying too little is, realistically, very unlikely to happen in any individual case. There may be one or two mistakes but the banks know they are in the spotlight.

I'm sorry, but you need to spend more time reading through the "PPI success and failure" thread

One or two mistakes?

Whilst I appreciate (and have poibnted out to me) that MSE is not the be all and end all when it comes to claims that are taking place, there are regular examples of major (being generous) "mistakes" taking place on a regular basis

One poster was under compensated by some £8k , in my own case its at least £2.5k undervalued and these are common amounts

The methods they use for calculation seem to differ massively as well, which when its 2 different banks (say RBS and HSBC) you might be able to understand, but when its within the same banking group its inexcusable

I fully accept that FOS and the FSA have an extremely hard job to do, but I think that your comments demonstrate you are not aware of the real situation as it happening right now

BTW, clarity - however it may come across in my postings I truly do not mean this to be personal attack, in fact I think its very healthy to debate the issues and get several points of view down here

TheAvenger

tifosi wrote: »

I'm completely at a loss that MSE would accept the press releases being spouted by FSA and the banks at face value

It can clearly be seen from the forums (particularly the "success/failure" thread) that this is very far from the reality of the situation

There seems to be a sweeping belief that when they say a complaint has been settled (as in the "97%") that they have been settled in full - this is not the case, in mosts cases they have merely sent a letter stating the claim is upheld and they will be in touch

People are then being told they have to wait another 28 working days-8 weeks (seems to vary greatly) for the calculation of the figure due and actual payment

It's also unclear from this article whether the "97% of 200,000" is just a HSBC figure (I'm assuming it is, as I'm sure all the banks have put far more on hold during the JR?

This is just the kind of issue that I expect MSE to be getting a real world straw poll on, and if those figures differ strongly from the (IMHO) garbage being spouted by FSA/Banks to take them to task over it

To my mind, it was quite enough that people had been subjected to yet more delays from this "in the consumers interest" 16 week extension (effectively rewarding the banks for placing claims on hold during the JR, despite the FSA having warned them not to) but to then expect these same people to endure a farcical 28 working days/8 weeks until they get their payment is quite beyond the pail - we are also seeing clear evidence the banks are trying it on with the amounts they are offering people - in one recent case someone was "conveniently" underpaid by £8,000!

It's also clear from many posts on the forum that the banks insistence that they are dealing with cases in time order is a blatant lie

Come on MSE, do what you do best, and stand up for the common man (or lady!) in the street - don't just "retweet" what the FSA/Banks are feeding you in their press release

We have been waiting over two years for NatWest/RBS on several claims through the FOS - the FOS wrote and asked us to accept a 'goodwill' offer with no admission of liability by the Bank - no figures, no deadline for payment, no nothing - and with a 14 day deadline for us to reply, only by email, failing which it was deemed you 'had' accepted and the FOS walked from the compalint(s) (so the letter implied).

Sought clarification whether this was for a single account or for the several complaints - the FOS (through a different employee) had written only months earlier and stated that all complaints had been consolidated into one - no clarification now from the FOS - be it joint or several.

And all this after NatWest staff failed to provide copy dox and stated that a SARN under the Data Protection Act was the only way that we could obtain them - and a SARN had already been served weeks earlier and the dox to one account had not been disclosed. The staff said they would get back to us - two years ago - they never did ! We left it to the FOS who kept reassuring us things were being sorted out.

NatWest also tried to engineer us breaching overdraft facilities (by failing to stop DDs for the new account amount less PPI despite repeated requests over several months) to damage the account and therefore they could go for default/higher interest - even a complaint to their Higher Complaints Division could offer "no reasonable explanation" for this/their failure/conduct - and the FOS recently stated after 2 years plus, that Data Protection issues (and therefore the conduct of the Bank) was nothing to do with the FOS (and one assumes how they would/should properly assess a PPI complaint) and any Data P issues should be referred to the Information Commissioner, albeit the time limit is 'within 6 months' - and now this is two years on.

It is a certain fact that all the political hype of late is wide of the mark and more of a PR exercise. Seems like the old story - put as much time and distance between the problem to weaken any complaints.

Good luck everyone !

magpiecottage

I understand your frustration Tifosi.

Although we see a high proportion of complaints here that is the nature of a site like this. Those who have no grounds for complaint are unlikely to seek it out an post on it. So we get a statistically biased picture.

However it does illustrate my point that you cannot simply give the calculations to a bunch of monkeys. So we have to decide whether the quality or quantity of the calculations is more important. I do not see much point in doing them fast and then having to do them again.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

However it does illustrate my point that you cannot simply give the calculations to a bunch of monkeys. So we have to decide whether the quality or quantity of the calculations is more important. I do not see much point in doing them fast and then having to do them again.

It illustrates nothing of the kind as in this instance no calculations of any quality or any quantity were provided.

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

It illustrates nothing of the kind as in this instance no calculations of any quality or any quantity were provided.

Tifosi made the point that when offers have been made they were wrong and I pointed out there is no point in rushing and getting the calculations wrong (particularly if that means having them done by people not competent to do it).

Of course it should be done by as quickly as possible but there are only a finite number of people capable of doing the calculations and available to do so.

It is true that the rate can be increased by purchasing software to assist. The banks will certainly know this because those producing it will have attempted to sell it to them and the banks will have purchased such software - once they have satisfied themselves that it produces accurate results.

However, to get the accurate answers it is necessary to enter the the correct data, which means unpicking the payment and interest history and loading it into the software. That is not straightforward and will therefore be time consuming.

src007

After not providing the figures in their offer letters HSBC are now using PPI refunds to clear the consumers loan. Its should be up to the consumer where the refund goes!?

Not following the rules is seemingly ingrained in their psyche.

Who cares what the FSA ''require'' them to do. They will do what they want and get away with it. The FSA haven't issued a single fine for PPI complaint handling depite the systematic failures over many years.

FSA neutral? :rotfl:

Would the FOS have 100'000 PPI cases on their doormat if the FSA were neutral? The FOS have to regulate for them.

magpiecottage

src007 wrote: »

After not providing the figures in their offer letters HSBC are now using PPI refunds to clear the consumers loan.

In what sense are they using it to clear the loan?

If they are using it to clear that element of a loan that was taken out solely to refund the PPI premium, that is correct in accordance with DISP App 3.7.4E(1)(a).

They are also entitled offset the redress against arrears on the account in accordance with DISP App 3.9.1G.

Its should be up to the consumer where the refund goes

You have an axe to grind, do you not?

You charge a substantial percentage of the redress gained.

However, if your client does not receive the redress as cash they are not in a position to pay you and can end up worse off than if you had not "helped" them.

Do you make a clear warning to your clients that this might happen before they sign up?

If not then you have not put them into a position to make an informed decision whether or not to purchase your services.

We have a term for that in Financial Services. We call it misselling.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

If not then you have not put them into a position to make an informed decision whether or not to purchase your services.

We have a term for that in Financial Services. We call it misselling.

src007

magpiecottage wrote: »

In what sense are they using it to clear the loan?

magpiecottage wrote: »

If they are using it to clear that element of a loan that was taken out solely to refund the PPI premium, that is correct in accordance with DISP App 3.7.4E(1)(a).

They are using all the PPI payments made and paying off all the future loan payments finishing the loan. They are doing it regardless of whether someone is in arrears. I wrote back to them today saying they were ignoring DISP App 3.7.4. (1) (a) (ii). Basically they’re not giving the option of a loan restructure.

magpiecottage wrote: »

You have an axe to grind, do you not?

If you look at the above posts from me on this thread I was defending HSBC! That was a mistake. :rotfl:

After you argued that the banks usually get the figure right, aside from the odd mistake. I’m just making a point (i'm not sure if that point is axe shaped?).

HSBC’s figures are all over the place and they’re not even following the correct FSA guidance.

magpiecottage wrote: »

You charge a substantial percentage of the redress gained.

If someone doesn’t complain they get nothing. What’s 100% of nothing? Believe it or not a large percentage of the population either don’t know they can complain (or have a potential complaint) are unable to complain or don’t have the confidence to write to banks that systematically mistreat people. There are people with poor language skills, foreign people, old people, and those who wouldn’t know what to write. The banks make their complaints process clear (or at least they should) so why are 70% of PPI complaints lodged at the FOS from CMCs?

magpiecottage wrote: »

Do you make a clear warning to your clients that this might happen before they sign up?

magpiecottage wrote: »

If not then you have not put them into a position to make an informed decision whether or not to purchase your services.

We have a term for that in Financial Services. We call it mis-selling.

Yes. We ask every client if they are behind with payment or in a DMP. We write to them letting them know that the full refund will go off arrears and our bill will be separate and put the complaint on hold. We offer payment plans at no additional cost for those that want to continue and don’t charge if someone is in real hardship.

Many people take the informed choice to continue.

I’ve seen many companies (and banks) that deal with complaints really well and take the time to provide personalised responses and in depth investigations. Whilst you may work (and get paid) by firms that act responsibly, others on this forum thread are trying to point out that there are organisations like HSBC that disregard their customers and don't care about following rules. What I don’t understand is why you defend these organisations that give the financial industry (and by association your clients) such a bad name.

Like with many things I think we will agree to disagree on this. :rotfl:

magpiecottage

src007 wrote: »

Like with many things I think we will agree to disagree on this.

Okay I think we can do that.

I am certainly not going to condone a firm that does not comply with the rules it is supposed to follow whether they are imposed by the FSA or the MOJ.

I suppose there is an irony, if the crooks among the CMCs were eliminated it would mean more business for those who really do want to operate ethically although less complaints from them overall.