MSE News: Lloyds 'wrongly rejecting PPI claims' 31 October 2012 at 5:29PM in Reclaim PPI & other insurance 73 replies 12.8K views

Former_MSE_Helen

"The bank only awarded compensation to some victims in between 15% and 35% of recent cases, figures show..."

Read the full story:

Lloyds 'wrongly rejecting PPI claims'

dunstonh

We have noticed on the forums that Halifax are no longer auto paying out on virtually all complaints as they were in the past. Now they are investigating them more closely than they were. So, you would expect some movement in the stats to take account of that. This was always going to happen when the backlog started to reduce.

Plus, most firms are reporting fraudulent complaints exceeding 50% of complaints made. So, they are going to impact on the stats as well.

The issue has been clouded by auto payouts being made where there is no valid complaint and people with valid complaints being rejected and then people with no complaint or not even any PPI making fraudulent complaints. All very ugly really on all sides.

From the article:

All of the letters contain the following text, or very similar text: "Regrettably, despite being given an opportunity to respond, the business has not yet provided its full file in relation to your complaint.

"[So] we have assessed it based on the information we do have. I am recommending we uphold the complaint and that Lloyds TSB compensate [name withheld]."

That means Lloyds are being lazy and its going against them. So, the stats show FOS awarding against them but had Lloyds supplied that information, then there is a good probability that a number of those would have been rejected by the FOS. I dont think that sample is suitable to give opinion on Lloyds rejecting unfairly. An opinion that they are bad at administration in relation to complaints is what I take from that.

chanz4

agree with lloyds, your figures are floored as the claims companys have been told off for trying to claim when no ppi so can you rely on them... nope

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

That means Lloyds are being lazy and its going against them. So, the stats show FOS awarding against them but had Lloyds supplied that information, then there is a good probability that a number of those would have been rejected by the FOS. I dont think that sample is suitable to give opinion on Lloyds rejecting unfairly. An opinion that they are bad at administration in relation to complaints is what I take from that.

Yes, I would agree. It's not the first time that MSE has used a sensationalistic and misleading headline to encourage more traffic to their articles.
No different to most tabloid newspapers, of course;)

Lorela1

I am so frustrated with Lloyds. I have put in a claim for PPI I was not aware had been applied to my credit card. They have written to me rejecting the claim saying they have looked at all my eviden: "you completed the application on [enter date]". Aarrgh. So I called them to point out that either they hadn't investigated the complaint very well, or had simply not completed their pro-forma letter very well (we're all human...), and they said they would look into it and write to me again. They've sent me the same letter, with the same blooming square brackets!! If they really are looking into my claim properly, why are they unable to disclose the date the policy was taken out?!

Lorela1

I know it sounds daft, but I was away at uni at the time, with statements being sent to my home address while I was away. I didn't keep a terribly close eye on the statements, just basically made sure I paid off what I could and/or needed to. Not the best example of responsibility I grant you, but an honest case of not being informed when I first took the thing out. Just a bit frustrated now that even their response seems to be totally inadequate.

[Deleted User]

Lorela1 wrote: »

Not the best example of responsibility I grant you, but an honest case of not being informed when I first took the thing out.

Why would you not be informed originally? PPI was not just randomly applied, regardless of what cold-calling claim companies might tell you.


Let's continue this discussion on your other thread....

magpiecottage

MSE_Helen wrote: »

The bank only awarded compensation to some victims in between 15% and 35% of recent cases

How does MSE know they were "victims" exactly? If it was not missold then you are not a "victim" of misselling.

And how can it be "between 15% and 35%" unless you are moving the metaphorical goalposts?

gadgetmind

I suspect the rising levels of rejections is because the majority of cases where PPI really was missold were sorted out ages ago and now we're seeing the long tail of assorted chancers and outright liars.

[Deleted User]

magpiecottage wrote: »

How can it be "between 15% and 35%" unless you are moving the metaphorical goalposts?

Yes, is it 16% or 34%? Both are between those percentage figures!
It's poor journalism, I agree. I also don't like the mysterious "sources" quoted from where some of this information is supposed to come.

CMC_Operator

"PPI was not just randomly applied, regardless of what cold-calling claim companies might tell you"

If your going to scold somebody at least make sure what you're saying is factually correct. MBNA for example were pre-ticking the acceptance box PPI on web applications for its credit cards for a 2-3 year period and clients had to actively opt out, something you have even commented on previously on this website.

Alliance and Leicester were fined by the FSA for doing something extremely similar.

I personally have dealt with many clients complaints recently, where Lloyds have rejected a complaint whereby both clients had more than adequate cover (both full time civil servants), but had been told they had to take the PPI or they wouldn't get the mortgage. There was no justification for rejecting the complaints and now people who have been sorely taken advantage of by their banks are having to wait a further 12 months for FOS to adjudicate on their complaint.

Also Lloyds are losing 98% of cases with the ombudsman, but from this you infer that its due to a rise in bogus claims? Nice mental gymnastics there.

However i suppose if you were an IFA and made yourself some nice juicy bonuses with blanket recommendations for PPI, then siding with MSE would be like turkeys voting for christmas.