MSE News: Households ripped off by £430 each year, report says

antrobus

MSE_Darryl wrote: »

"Every household is being ripped off to the tune of £430 a year by financial firms, according to a new study ..." ...

A sad indictment of 13 years of Labour government.

YoYoY

Will MSE be providing us with an easy to follow guide on how to successfully reclaim the £430 per year we have all been ripped off? :cool:

How far back can we claim?
(this is a common question on all the reclaiming boards)

kabayiri

YoYoY wrote: »

Will MSE be providing us with an easy to follow guide on how to successfully reclaim the £430 per year we have all been ripped off? :cool:
...

There was quite a bit of publicity some time back about people crossing out selected words in the T&Cs.

You could argue this practise is very MSE and exactly what is being argued for on here, ie people taking the contractual terms seriously.

Unsurprisingly, if I remember correctly, the companies who produced the T&Cs accompanying their products took a different view....

Nowadays, Wonga think they are giving you control by providing a couple of pathetic sliders. If they didn't do this it would never occur to the consumer to ask for a specific amount to borrow over a period of time :rotfl:

dunstonh

Mayo says consumers should be able to take "class actions" in the UK over issues such as PPI mis-selling.

A bit worrying when people writing the report make silly errors like that. The PPI issue is an FSA issue. Not a legal one. The banks/lenders have been having success in courts as it is not a legal failing (i.e. no laws broken). The changing of the rules retrospectively to actually make it difficult for lenders to show they did things right is not something that works in the courts. So, how would a class action help people in cases like PPI?

Plus, over half of PPI complaints being made are fraudulent. A lot of people are getting paid out who do not deserve it. That isnt to say there wasnt an issue with the banks. However, it does mean that those people not stupid enough to take out something they didnt want because they could say no are going to end up paying for all these consumers that are just as bad as the banks doing the mis-selling by putting in their fake compaints.

gingerdad

seems like a non story to me like a lot of these surveys some one takes 2+2 and comes up with what ever answer suits the story.

on a more important note i was very disappointed by moneysupermarket as they claim to save me 400 on my car insurance, but i haven's seen a cheque from them for the 120.00 (as my car insurance is only 280.00 quid).

as lots of people have said rip off is a strong word and as our companys former chairman used to say (lot richer than me) "i can't be arsed saving 50 quid on my electric its not worth my time" - so is he being ripped off or just lazy?

N1AK

I know the intention is to be 'sensationalist' and bring attention to the issue; however, I think there is a risk that by mis-representing the additional cost of services for the poor as 'ripping off' you end up pushing many onto the side of the banks etc (as can be seen here).

The basic point is that people who are poorer, even if they aren't actually less financially capable, tend to end up paying more to buy the same services as someone wealthier. The problem is that many believe that it is the fault of banks/insurers etc, when actually all they are doing is reacting to market conditions. Real solutions to the problem are:
> Better financial education, and advice, for people on low incomes to help them get out of trouble (not just keep their head above water).
> Pass laws to 'support' people with financial issues (banning excessive overdraft payments) which will likely lead to larger costs/charges for those without.
> The government directly intervene to offer 'competitive' services, again at a cost.

Personally I think there is a need for a bit of each, potentially with some direct intervention for those shown to be chronically incapable of doing it themselves. The issue is that it would cost money in the short term (unpopular with most voters) and take away freedom from the financially incapable (unpopular with them and those in society opposed to that kind of policy) so it won't happen.