A quarter of PPI claims fraudulent

thelawnet

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9237831/Lloyds-slams-fraudulent-PPI-claims-as-profits-rise.html

"The bank revealed that 25pc of the PPI claims turn out to be without merit and that about a third of the cases referred to it by claims management companies were for products that never had PPI sold against them."

ppidisgrace

thelawnet wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9237831/Lloyds-slams-fraudulent-PPI-claims-as-profits-rise.html

"The bank revealed that 25pc of the PPI claims turn out to be without merit and that about a third of the cases referred to it by claims management companies were for products that never had PPI sold against them."

cant be fraud if there is no ppi there is no potential blame
would rather 25% make a mistake as confused if they had it or not then 75% miss out
the blank for this is the banks who created it in their first place
and still they treat the customer with contempt
costs to the customer for representation could be lowered by up to 33% but banks not interested would rather take on people alone, funny that

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

cant be fraud if there is no ppi there is no potential blame

Section 2(2) of the Fraud Act 2006 says

"A representation is false if
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading."

So if you say you were missold PPI when you know you might not have even have had it, you commit an offence under that Act.

The name of the Act is, I think, a pretty strong hint as to what that offence is.

ALIBOBSY

The problem is these companies will just ask for a list of any loans and credit cards people had and bang in claims to them all. If someone does there own they will usually either check the statements and/or do a SAR and check.
The reality is this type of insurance was on mass repeatedly and systematically miss sold and the banks are doing anything they can to get out of repaying it and to try to make anyone who reclaims look like a greedy moneygrabber-talk about pot and kettle syndrome.

I bet all of us who have made claims would much prefer that PPI had never been invented nor created. Even if the banks thought PPI was useful to customer they could have just sent an offer of the insurance with all the details to each customer to puruse after a loan or card was taken out. There would have been no miss sales and only those who really wanted the cover would have taken it. BUT no the banks obsessed with massive profits they could make from a product that rarely if ever paid out became selling machines.

So the banks need to suck it up and pay up. The quicker they get things settled the sooner they can put this whole mess behind them

Ali x

dzug1

So the general view here is that the banks should pay any claim, fraudulent or mistaken or not?

Coz that's the message I'm getting, even if from only a few posters

Whyikit

What is worrying here is the number of these cases which are coming from CMCs. I thought according to some poster on here they were supposed to know what they are doing? It seems that they do not...

I tell you what that has surprised me.....

dunstonh

Ok, so referring back to the mortgage adviser case I mentioned on other threads, he had a fraudulent complaint where the letter made accusations against him. The letter accused him of saying certain things and listed "facts" which were completely made up. He had to pay a £500 FOS fee despite never having sold PPI. Claims company gets away scot free. Consumer gets away scot free.

So, should he be able to take action against those?

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

Ok, so referring back to the mortgage adviser case I mentioned on other threads, he had a fraudulent complaint where the letter made accusations against him. The letter accused him of saying certain things and listed "facts" which were completely made up. He had to pay a £500 FOS fee despite never having sold PPI. Claims company gets away scot free. Consumer gets away scot free.

So, should he be able to take action against those?

A pity he didn't have a client agreement written by me. It includes provision to.

davidh025c

PPI was/is not a bad product, you can read on here of it being used to help people who genuinely needed it. It was mis-sold to a lot of people who have the right to claim it back, but as rightly pointed out above CMC's just blindly slap in a claim for any old agreement in a hope of getting the 30+% fee's. They do not seem to care they commit fraud with a proportion of the cases and are quite happy for others to be out of pocket. Good to see ppidisgrace is talking out of thier backside again....:rotfl:

magpiecottage

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

Even if the banks thought PPI was useful to customer they could have just sent an offer of the insurance with all the details to each customer to puruse after a loan or card was taken out. There would have been no miss sales and only those who really wanted the cover would have taken it.

Of course, the government could have introduced legislation to make that happen.

Oh - it did last month. Planning with the benefit of hindsight is so easy.

magpiecottage

Whyikit wrote: »

What is worrying here is the number of these cases which are coming from CMCs. I thought according to some poster on here they were supposed to know what they are doing? It seems that they do not...

I tell you what that has surprised me.....

Let me give you another surprise.

The Pope is Catholic.