MSE News: Ombudsman recruits extra staff to beat PPI logjam

[Deleted User]

Pincher wrote: »

If the banks are really paying for the FOS, they need to fine the bad banks, on top of the payouts, so the good banks don't pay for the extra admin, which just end up getting paid for by the bank customers.

They do "fine" the banks and IFAs in the form of a £500 fee for every referred case (win or lose). However, it's the job of the Regulator to actually fine businesses which break the rules governing them.
It is independent of the Banks, but was set up by Parliament as self-funding;


http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/index.html

~Brock~

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

They do "fine" the banks and IFAs in the form of a £500 fee for every referred case (win or lose).

Which is exactly why it should not be viewed as 'acceptable' to put in a complaint just for the hell of it just to try and grab some cash where no valid reason exists.

Nobody likes the banks so they are seen as fair game (which still doesnt make it right), but this type of action can put smaller firms and individuals out of business through no fault of their own.

Also, I don't think the win-or-lose-you-pay funding model was really designed with the activities of claims companies in mind because most of these merchants have the morals of alley cats and are happy to bang in claims left right and centre with no comeback on themselves for just how speculative they are and how much time and money they waste.

[Deleted User]

~Brock~ wrote: »

I don't think the win-or-lose-you-pay funding model was really designed with the activities of claims companies in mind because most of these merchants have the morals of alley cats and are happy to bang in claims left right and centre with no comeback on themselves for just how speculative they are and how much time and money they waste.

I so agree with you. Why no one has clamped down on these opportunists I don't know.

magpiecottage

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I so agree with you.

Me too

Why no one has clamped down on these opportunists I don't know.

Probably because nobody wants to face up to the fact that making an allegation that is, or is likely to be, false in order to make a gain is fraud.

That and the fact that FOS pays its adjudicators [STRIKE]a backhander[/STRIKE] - sorry - a bonus for looking at cases and telling the poor adviser he has no case to answer (as he has already told them).

~Brock~

magpiecottage wrote: »

Probably because nobody wants to face up to the fact that making an allegation that is, or is likely to be, false in order to make a gain is fraud.

Probably also because the actual CMC regulator, the Ministry of Justice (the weakest regulator you could ever imagine) only got the job because nobody else, such as the OFT, wanted to do it.

Their solution was to farm the day to day regulation out to the lowest bidder, which happened to be Staffordshire Council !!

Now I don't know about them but if my own council is anything to go by they're out of their depth trying to regulate our bin collections!

Result? Hundreds of CMC's running round causing havoc, ripping off the public and abusing the FOS process at every opportunity while the MoJ stands on the sidelines watching it happen.

You really couldn't make this stuff up. I know I wish I was!

timmybear

~Brock~ wrote: »

Are we really naiive enough to think that all these £500/£850's wont come back to haunt consumers in future product pricing?

I have always thought that we will all pick up the tab for it all eventually, one way or another.

timmybear

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Just like millions of them paid for expensive, often useless, PPI policies? .

That's the part which I don't think I will ever, ever understand. When a customer looks at what they are about to sign up to and sees a whopping great lump of front-loaded PPI, did they not think for a moment what it was 'worth'? Some of the horror stories I have read on here are from people who've paid almost as much for PPI as they borrowed from the lender (assuming the figures given were in fact correct). I hear it when they say "we were told we couldn't get the loan without it..." and "we felt under pressure..." and "we needed the money quickly..." and all the rest of it, but surely when one deals with their finances, it's not something to rush into or be bullied into?

If I was told that I had to take on another £ X-thousand in addition to my loan and the interest, you can be sure that I'd think more than twice before agreeing to it.

Some years ago Picture Loans were told by the Advertising Standards Authority to remove a TV commercial as it was claimed it diminished the seriousness of taking out loans (esp. secured loans) and that people needed to take their time to ensure they were doing the right thing. I totally agree that people rush into taking out debt without really understanding how serious it really is.

Having said all that, when I think that people all over the country are falling foul of cold-callers who claim to be from Microsoft and are fueling an on-going scam, nothing should surprise me really. A fool and his money...

di3004

I understand the new Recruitment Agency rules came into affect from 01 October 2011, once worked for 12 or 13 weeks - an agency worker should receive the same pay as permanent staff.

I take it this will stand for the FOS as well??

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Understandingyourworkstatus/Agencyworkersandemploymentagencies/DG_198913

[Deleted User]

timmybear wrote: »

when they say "we were told we couldn't get the loan without it..." and "we felt under pressure..." and "we needed the money quickly..." and all the rest of it, but surely when one deals with their finances, it's not something to rush into or be bullied into?

As usual, you're applying your own approach to finances to everyone else. Not everyone checks their statements religiously or puts aside savings every month. Some live hand to mouth through necessity (they aren't paid enough) and some choose a spending lifestyle.
The fact is that many of the people sold PPI with their loans WERE subjected to high pressure sales techniques encouraged by the lenders.
I can certainly see your point about people who may well be "jumping on the bandwagon" and making spurious claims about how their PPI was (mis) sold to them. However, to say the millions who succumbed were "fools" is going a step too far.

timmybear

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

As usual, you're applying your own approach to finances to everyone else. Not everyone checks their statements religiously or puts aside savings every month. Some live hand to mouth through necessity (they aren't paid enough) and some choose a spending lifestyle.
The fact is that many of the people sold PPI with their loans WERE subjected to high pressure sales techniques encouraged by the lenders.
I can certainly see your point about people who may well be "jumping on the bandwagon" and making spurious claims about how their PPI was (mis) sold to them. However, to say the millions who succumbed were "fools" is going a step too far.

Hi there. Of course I am applying my own approach. Why would I use anyone elses? That wouldn't be expressing my own opinion if I did.

I too have no savings to speak of (and I mean that). I know what it means not to earn a lot of money and have too many things which need it spending on them. Up until Xmas of last year, I was in £££'s of debt too and had been in debt since the age of 18 and I've still got the mortgage and my partners car finance to go. But I have been lucky enough to have had the good health & oppourtunity to work my back what-sit off to pay back what I've had to borrow. For that, I thank God.

I am not 'clever' about money and I don't pretend to be. What I feel is that I had to make a monumental effort to 'learn' about it, and like a good many of us, this was in the days before Google. Many, many people I know my age have had to go through the same process of learning...thus the comment "I was young" seems to crop up a lot, by people who were a good many years older than me at the time they refer to what ever incident it is that has upset them. It holds no water for me at all.

I also have no time for anyone who claims not to have checked their statements properly. To not do so is to totally defeat the object of having them sent out. I have a family member much older than myself who can never bother with this, yet when there is a problem it is suddenly everyone elses fault, never hers. Years ago I worked for a major landline telephone company and part of my job was investigating alleged disputed telephone calls on a bill. I know from doing that job that anyone in society is capable of querying even the smallest of charges on a bill / statememt. I know they do not represent the world, I am merely saying that blanket terms used (by that I mean in general) to suggest that some people in society are not capable of understanding their own finances etc are not true.

The line about "A fool and his money" is one part of a famous proveb (A fool and his money are soo parted). I was not saying that anyone specifically was a 'fool' and if it is a step to far then so be it - I'm not about to apologise for feeling the way I do. What I was getting at was that in general there seem to be many people around who are too keen to hand over their money (or else borrow money) without taking the time to think it through.