Lloyds Banking Group £3.85 Billion In Red After PPI Cost Wipes Out Profit

Graham_Devon

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Totally agree.

The downside is that selling of products such as PPI subsidised other products such as mortgages. So we end up paying in the end.

Agree.

But then I think it's fairer that those actually using a product should be the ones who pay for it, rather than being subsidised by those being miss sold products that, in many cases, will never actually exist for them.

Is it fair that someone with a personal loan and PPI will never actually be able to claim the insurance that they are paying for regardless of circumstances, just so that mortgage holders can have a reduced cost?

Either way, it's now going to cost more for others than it otherwise would have done if they had played fair in the first place, as the payouts have cost many times what it would have done if they had actually sold the products and paid up on products correctly.

As with banks, it seems, it always ends up costing US, no matter what the banks have done.

Graham_Devon

And while I'm on my soapbox, a couple of real life scenarios in how PPI was sold. Firstly my dads.

In branch, 20 minute personal meeting with an advisor. Talks about rolling over loans, reducing the overal interest, take your credit card, roll it up into the loan...shows the payment plan etc. Then out comes the paperwork, including talking about PPI.

Now, dad wants the loan, thats why he is there. He also DOES want PPI to cover unemployment / sickness etc. He's got a family wants the loan sorted if he finds himself out of work for no fault of his own. Advisors states to sign the paperwork (a good 10 pages of it in small print, covering loan schedules, PPI, blah de blah). If he does this now, the money will be in his account within an hour. But if he takes it away, it will take a few days to process. This therefore leaves no time for reading the small print. Of course, there is the option to take it away, but when people need money and have taken time out to sit in an office discussing said money, people usually need money asap.

It didn't need to take a few days. Why should it take a few days if the paperwork is taken off site and handed into the branch the next day or even later on that day? It shouldn't. The same bloke is going to give the same rubber stamp.

The principle is to coherse the client into signing there and then and giving no time to read each clause. Otherwise theres a "penalty" of waiting a few days.

In my case with the car loan, they simply refuse to hold the car. Even a deposit will not secure it. So you either take the loan, or you walk away and do the research, but the car may not be here when you get back. I can secure it now for you, just sign. Or take the paperwork away but you will have to come back tommorow Afternoon when I have my next slot to see you, and the car may be gone.....always someone else interested.

It's all based on human nature and wanting it now. You are afterall, sitting in that office for a reason. You want the product and you want it now, hence why you are sitting there now. There was usually a penalty for delaying the signature so that you could actually read what you were signing up to.

lvader

Usual corporate earnings trick, if you have bad news and have to take a loss make it a big one.

Masomnia

The thing with PPI is that it's all the banks. It's not just one particularly shifty bank exploiting people, it's all the major retail banks. Can't believe they got away with it for so long, tbh. Isn't the FSA supposed to look at things like this?

pqrdef

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Lloyds shot themselves in the foot. Honouring his claim would have cost them 3 times less than the payout they are now making for being greedy lying theives.

Which raises another aspect of the PPI business - whether the premiums being charged had any relation to the risks, or whether they were in fact vastly excessive. How much of the premium was kicked back to the bank as commission?

oldvicar

It seems odd that Graham_Devon clearly WAS mis-sold in 2003, and isn't bothering to reclaim - is there a 6-year rule?? Yet he defends today's bandwagoneers ....

Going4TheDream

oldvicar wrote: »

It seems odd that Graham_Devon clearly WAS mis-sold in 2003, and isn't bothering to reclaim - is there a 6-year rule?? Yet he defends today's bandwagoneers ....

Yes it is 6 years.......and I hardly feel that all people are bandwagoneers maybe some are trying it on admittedly but clearly many have been sold products that were highly unsuitable for their needs and would be useless given their personal circumstances...... I rather think it is more appropriate to call the banks 'profiteers'

Graham_Devon

oldvicar wrote: »

It seems odd that Graham_Devon clearly WAS mis-sold in 2003, and isn't bothering to reclaim - is there a 6-year rule?? Yet he defends today's bandwagoneers ....

There is a 6 year rule. Not sure it is completely enforced. I paid the loan off after 8 months, so it was done and dusted.

Not sure I would therefore both trying to reclaim, just stating that I myself was obliviously, at the time, sold something which wouldn't ever have paid out, due to the fact that I was self employed. It was also sold in a manner that led me to believe that that is the only way I could get the cheaper deal....and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Todays bandwagoners? I'm defending my dad, who was declined, even though he did actually fall ill and is now classed as disabled and was when he tried to claim. Apparently, according to Lloyds, he should have told them he was going to be disabled before he knew he was, and therefore they declined. Being in the building industry doesn't really bode well for disabled people

gokuaiba

it was much to my delight when dad finally, after 2 years of trying got the letter confirming he would be receiving all his payments back.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There is a 6 year rule. Not sure it is completely enforced. I paid the loan off after 8 months, so it was done and dusted.

Not sure I would therefore both trying to reclaim, just stating that I myself was obliviously, at the time, sold something which wouldn't ever have paid out, due to the fact that I was self employed. It was also sold in a manner that led me to believe that that is the only way I could get the cheaper deal....and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Todays bandwagoners? I'm defending my dad, who was declined, even though he did actually fall ill and is now classed as disabled and was when he tried to claim. Apparently, according to Lloyds, he should have told them he was going to be disabled before he knew he was, and therefore they declined. Being in the building industry doesn't really bode well for disabled people

In 200x I applied for a credit card from Nat West. I told them twice during the application process that I absolutely definitely did not want their crappy PPI, once unprompted. They signed me up anyway.

They refused to refund me and tried to tell me in the Cheapside branch that I couldn't cancel it at all. It's amazing the response you get in a public place when you call someone a %&*$ thief in a very loud voice. Sometimes they will do the previously impossible to get you away from their customers.

I paid a single month premium and to be honest life is too short to chase around for twenty quid. I will never do business with those beggurs again though.