MSE News: Claim PPI now as banks call for deadline

[Deleted User]

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Get thee gone bank lover :mad:

I'm no "bank lover", though nor am I going to tell someone who was in arrears with their payments that they remained fully insured.


This thread has become somewhat argumentative, so I'll take my leave of it.

angeleyes99

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

This thread has become somewhat argumentative, so I'll take my leave of it.

Me too...I just wanted to read the general opinion...

Alpine_Star

It'll never happen and the FSA has just said as much.

pmduk

dunstonh wrote: »

The 3 year/6 year timebar can be fine. It doesnt need any permission as the FSA already allow it. However, they cant just start the clock. They would need to write out and tell the person they have PPI and that they have the right to complain about it and what the deadline is.

I'm with dunstonh, mainly to get rid of all the TV ads. The industry needs to move on, whilst treating past victims fairly

rb10

gadgetmind wrote: »

I also wonder how many remaining claims are actually legit versus ones where there wasn't even PPI purchased?

It's around one-third of cases where the customer has actually held PPI with the bank in question.

Something needs to be done about this. A time limit would be a good way of putting a halt to all of these speculative claims.

Or a form of regulation over the Claims Management Companies to prevent them from wasting everyone's time and money by making fictitious claims in the hope that some will pay out.

A significant proportion of the money that banks are putting into PPI provisions is to pay for the £500-a-time case fees at the Financial Ombudsman Service where a Claims Management Company knows that the customer never had PPI at that bank, but still takes the claim right up to the FOS. Whatever you think about banks, this sort of behaviour really shouldn't be allowed.

dunstonh

It's around one-third of cases where the customer has actually held PPI with the bank in question.

Various companies have come out and said it is running closer to 50% of cases don't have PPI. The compliance company I use has suggested figures close to that. Plus, they have seen an increase in life assurance complaints due to people thinking life assurance is PPI. Frequently giving PPI complaint reasons even though its not PPI. The vast majority of these "dodgy" complaints come via claims companies rather than an individual directly.

A significant proportion of the money that banks are putting into PPI provisions is to pay for the £500-a-time case fees at the Financial Ombudsman Service

Its gone up from £500 for PPI. The Financial Ombudsman Service said that an additional £350 per case would be charged where businesses had more than 25 of these cases referred over the course of a year, "reflecting where the costs are actually incurred" in sorting out what it expects to be a record year for PPI mis-selling referrals.

Hence why you are now seeing so many auto payouts on small amounts. Problem is that auto payouts encourage more fraudulent complaints.

chris-j

This is just nonsense. If people don't know about PPI they must be living in complete isolation for past 5 years.
Yes many were missold, but many were more than happy to have the cover and would have happily claimed if their circumstances had warranted it.
The fact loads of claims have been made by people who successfully claimed and chancers speaks volumes.

Draw a line under this and stop costing taxpayer money. Next target will hopefully be claims against the claims management sharks who have stolen money from the PPI claimants.
It's a vicious circle which needs to stop asap before we fall into the situation of 90% of texts calls and emails are from claims managements companies encouraging people to make false and fraudulent claims.

I applaud MSE and Martin for promotion of good financial sense for all, but their obsession of supporting the "underdog" at any cost wears a bit thin.

-taff

I don't watch television and I don't read newspapers.
I found out by accident July last year.

chris-j

-taff wrote: »

I don't watch television and I don't read newspapers.
I found out by accident July last year.

Ignorance is bliss is it not:)

ALIBOBSY

dunstonh wrote: »

The existing rules already exist under the FSA to allow this to take place. Indeed, some lenders are now starting to use those rules.

The 3 year/6 year timebar can be fine. It doesnt need any permission as the FSA already allow it. However, they cant just start the clock. They would need to write out and tell the person they have PPI and that they have the right to complain about it and what the deadline is.

I suspect they want guidance from the FSA on how it should be done as I bet they dont want to write to people and are looking to make it easier for themselves.

As Duns rightly points out the banks ALREADY have a time limit. They are just trying yet ANOTHER immoral dodgy tactic to avoid their responsibilities.

The FSA should turn around and say you have your deadline simply get on and write to all the customers who haven't claimed and in 3 years time it will all be done and dusted.

No the banks don't want to "invite" claims and hope to save a percentage by this underhand, sneaky action.

If they HAD to a middle line would be 1) Allow 12 months of advertising/writing out by banks followed by a 3 year time limit, 2) reduce the time banks have to deal with complaint before the FOS can look at it to 4 weeks, 3) Increase the rates FOS investgations cost the banks to encourage them to settle quickly where applicable and to fund more bods at FOS to deal with the backlog.

That way it gives a generous time limit and pushes the banks to get things sorted asap, whilst calling a final time limit on the whole matter.

Ali x