MSE News: PPI summit: Commitment to help consumers reclaim for free

JuicyJesus

Oh lordy Christ.

2sides2everystory wrote: »

I really don't know why you lot are still arguing the semantics of "proper" PPI claims. Anyone who has had a loan or credit card should submit a claim.

I have never had PPI on any of my loans or credit cards. Should I submit a "claim" (you mean complaint, surely)? If so I would be committing fraud, because I will be claiming I was mis-sold something that I was never actually sold. People who do this don't get redress. Your idea is stupid and leads to people who genuinely do have cause for complaint to get stuck in a queue behind people who don't.

It's as close as you'll get to Quantative Easing for the masses sponsored by HMG and paid for by the ugly banks that deserve to lose every last penny that they have to pay out in order to keep the backlog down to agreed levels.

This money, and the money spent on complaints handlers and also FOS fees even in cases where the customer never had PPI or there was no wrongdoing, has to come from somewhere. Other customers will pay in the end for the huge black hole of money which has been siphoned off into redress for meritless complaints, some of which further gets paid to claims companies and the FOS.

Note that if you actually were mis-sold PPI I have absolutely no opposition to you getting redress. However if you weren't you shouldn't. Nor should you have the right to clog up the complaints procedures and the FOS for everyone else. Lots of people opted in for PPI because they thought it was a good idea to protect their borrowing or they thought it would help them get what they were applying for (even if they weren't told it would) and are now trying to get redress because it's in vogue and all they hear is that PPI is bad.

Fairness is key, and much the same as I think people who have been wronged deserve redress, banks that haven't done anything wrong should not be paying out.

Half of you are involved in selling dodgy pension arrangements (because the pension industry is full of dodges that cost punters the earth) - did you see Elizabeth Corley on Hardtalk? So what's wrong with the masses getting their claim forms in now on PPI and on pensions too in good time? A little redistribution of wealth unfairly distributed (snaffled actually) in the first place cannot be a bad thing now can it?

What's wrong is that telling lies and committing fraud is generally considered a Bad Thing, whoever does it.

This is not about banking fraud or customer fraud now - its about how the government have decided to cause a few billions to get dished out to ordinary people. Other governments in Europe have used more decorum with the way they've done it using more socially democratic means. Our current government being the landed gent sort is more used to employing a man to tip stuff out in a trough for the lower echelons to stick their snouts in before its all gone.

I say get stuck in or you'll miss out.

This is an excellent theory with the only issue being that it doesn't make a lick of sense. The Government have not done anything. The FSA have, in that they ruled that current sales standards should apply to past sales, and this was upheld by the judiciary.

Your idea also hinges on the assumption that a majority-Conservative government is going to redistribute money from banks and the wealthy to the poor. Even a slight glance at the gist of the coalition's economic policy, or even a moment of thought as to what the Tories stand for in general, would reveal this to be total and utter b*llocks.

It would be interesting to see what the long term economic impact of this will be, because it is a lot of money being siphoned out of financial services businesses and into consumers' hands, although in many cases it is simply writing off existing debts through setting off. However to suggest it is a deliberate Government policy to redistribute wealth is ludicrous conspiracy theory territory.

ppidisgrace

dunstonh wrote: »

The FOS are rejecting more complaints as well. This is mainly due to the increase in fraudulent complaints being put in by the claims companies.



Yes it is. You are always going to get some difference of opinion on certain complaints. It means that they are handling well over 90% of the complaints correctly.

your definition of fraudulent claims is claims without ppi

i am talking about banks rejecting more and more claims WITH ppi

dunstonh

your definition of fraudulent claims is claims without ppi

i am talking about banks rejecting more and more claims WITH ppi

Banks are rejecting more now as they are clearing the backlog and starting to investigate the complaints more rather than auto pay out. The FOS are rejecting more complaints as well. At the peak the FOS was upholding over 90%. The last report from the FOS said it had now dropped to 68%. I would not be surprised to see that fall a fair bit more in the next report.

ppidisgrace

agreed, terrible

Credit-Crunched

Bean31 wrote: »

As taken off MSE

It's a common complaint that consumers are told they must buy a policy from the same provider as the loan in order to be accepted for the product. This is mis-selling.

Any company that subscribes to the Lending Code (see list) agrees it won't insist you buy an insurance product from it. Therefore if the salesperson:

Didn't make it clear the policy was optional or tell you about any cooling off period
Implied or stated it would be more expensive if you didn't take the insurance
Implied or insisted you take out their policy to qualify for the product or help with your application
Was very pushy when selling the product, so that you felt you could not say no
Would not let you continue with the application if you did not sign the insurance agreement as well

I rest my case - its a common complaint.....! There are thousands of people who needed money for whatever reason, banks have prayed on vulnerable people for years and still do! I see you are one of those with bad debt, question reversed "what have you spent your money on?"

My debt was spent on a shoulder operation as the NHS would not fund me, dislocation every other day was not classed as a priority.

So not really wasted, not when you see some of the work shy scroungers on this board!

ppidisgrace

yeah i still cant see how the mse credit card page explains how to win an online credit card non advised sale

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

yeah i still cant see how the mse credit card page explains how to win an online credit card non advised sale

What do you want to know?

Obviously the "misleading advice" argument will fail because you cannot be misled by advice that was never given and so you need to show that the actual website was misleading.

The argument most likely to win is that the page automatically opted you in. If it did then either the bank or FOS will uphold the complaint.

If it didn't then you won't.

You will no doubt say that banks will lie about what the web page did or did not say but I can find plenty of assertions by consumers, and even more by CMCs that are clearly untrue.

And, despite having to pay a CMC, they have NO POWERS over a bank to access its records.

By contrast, FOS, which is FREE, does. So if a CMC thinks bank is lying it has to get FOS to investigate - and then it charges you for something which costs nothing.

So there you have it. Use the FOS form to make your complaint. If the bank says "no" and you think they are telling porkies go to FOS because only they and a court can compel it to provide evidence.

ppidisgrace

magpiecottage wrote: »

What do you want to know?

Obviously the "misleading advice" argument will fail because you cannot be misled by advice that was never given and so you need to show that the actual website was misleading.

The argument most likely to win is that the page automatically opted you in. If it did then either the bank or FOS will uphold the complaint.

If it didn't then you won't.

You will no doubt say that banks will lie about what the web page did or did not say but I can find plenty of assertions by consumers, and even more by CMCs that are clearly untrue.

And, despite having to pay a CMC, they have NO POWERS over a bank to access its records.

By contrast, FOS, which is FREE, does. So if a CMC thinks bank is lying it has to get FOS to investigate - and then it charges you for something which costs nothing.

So there you have it. Use the FOS form to make your complaint. If the bank says "no" and you think they are telling porkies go to FOS because only they and a court can compel it to provide evidence.

I run a consultancy to help Independent Financial Advisers to comply with their rules and resolve complaints. I run a consultancy to help Independent Financial Advisers to comply with their rules and resolve complaints. I run a consultancy to help Independent Financial Advisers to comply with their rules and resolve complaints.

buyer beware

ppidisgrace

magpiecottage wrote: »

What do you want to know?

Obviously the "misleading advice" argument will fail because you cannot be misled by advice that was never given and so you need to show that the actual website was misleading.

The argument most likely to win is that the page automatically opted you in. If it did then either the bank or FOS will uphold the complaint.

If it didn't then you won't.

You will no doubt say that banks will lie about what the web page did or did not say but I can find plenty of assertions by consumers, and even more by CMCs that are clearly untrue.

And, despite having to pay a CMC, they have NO POWERS over a bank to access its records.

By contrast, FOS, which is FREE, does. So if a CMC thinks bank is lying it has to get FOS to investigate - and then it charges you for something which costs nothing.

So there you have it. Use the FOS form to make your complaint. If the bank says "no" and you think they are telling porkies go to FOS because only they and a court can compel it to provide evidence.

so i guess you agree then, there isnt

dunstonh

ppidisgrace is from a claims company and frequently posts things that are MoJ rule breaches. Buyer beware.