'I reject accusations of 'pushing compensation culture'' blog discussion

Former_MSE_Helen

This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.

Read Martin's "I reject accusations of 'pushing compensation culture'" Blog.

Please click 'post reply' to discuss below.

JimmyTheWig

I'm certainly in agreement with you 90%, Martin.
I totally agree, for example, that we shouldn't let the banks off with these dodgy practices.

I think that those who oppose reclaiming bank charges (the same sorts of people who oppose cracking down on RyanAir's charging policies) do so out of selfishness. By being able to play the system within the rules they are able to win. By cutting down the amout that others lose by there are less winnings for them. I've got no agreement with these people.

But I think where it comes to insurance type questions (PPI particularly, but I guess the same is true with the insurance included in premium bank accounts) it becomes a little hazy.
Obviously someone who was sold PPI who couldn't use it was mis-sold. But the majority of people asking about reclaiming PPI on these boards don't even know what it was about the whole process that meant they were mis-sold. They've heard that they can reclaim and so want to. (a) That doesn't suggest mis-selling to me and (b) gives no indication of them having learned anything for next time.
We've even seen cases of people complaining that they didn't get their full premiums back because they had claimed on the policy! If they made a claim it suggests (a) they knew they had it and (b) it was appropriate for them. But they have still reclaimed it _and_ think it is unfair that they haven't got all their premiums back.
It means that, for many, it has been a free insurance policy. If they needed the cover they could have claimed on it. And if they didn't need the cover they could reclaim it. While the reclaim process puts them back in the position they would have been had they not taken out the cover, they are in some ways better off because they've had the peace of mind over that time without (now) having had to pay for it. With hindsight, then, for many taking out a poor product was the right thing to do. Which isn't what we want to encourage, any more than we want to encourage people to slip over in milk in Tesco.

I think, back to where I agree with you, that we have to look at the big picture and it is the big banks who have abused their position and you can't equate the individuals reclaiming to chance their luck when they knew what they were buying with these multi-national corporations.
But at the same time I can see where the complainers are coming from on this issue.

supersavor

I dont think you push reclaiming culture but i do think many have latched onto it.
I no longer work for a bank but when i did we sold these accounts on the phone we went through a full fact find and gave the customer 3 options and it was up to them which product they took out.

I appreciate ppi was maybe missold but it was also sold correctly over 95% off the time i never missold.

The claim culture has now made my former colleagues unable to missell as they now send the details off what the customer picks and why and the accounts they didnt pick so they were fully informed.no doubt we will never see the the end off people claiming no mater what the banks now put in place.

jamesd

Generally I think you're right. I think it's more a perception problem, with those writing about compensation culture thinking about those who were not really mis-sold but who are claiming just because they can and think they might get away with it. But assuming that all claiming is wrong would be going way too far and most claimants are not just trying to get something they weren't really entitled to, they really were wronged.

Cathyduk

It's true you've identified where banks were wrong.
You've spread the message.
You've made people aware.
You've given them the knowledge.
You've given them the tools to fight back.

But by doing this, you do have the acknowledge that lots of people are using this information, knowledge and tools and are not genuine. They weren't mis-sold. It's now so easy to claim you were mis-sold and get your money back that sadly people are taking advantage of it.

I had a friend admit to me she had done it. I didn't tell her but I felt really disappointed because we all know banks are profit-making organisations. It's great that they have 'put aside millions to pay for PPI claims' but ultimately in some other way, other customers will lose out. Perhaps through the 'depressingly low saving rates' you quote in this week's email.

It's definitely not your fault that people who aren't genuine are claiming they were mis-sold. But you do have to acknowledge that in some way you gave them the tools to do it. Even though I fully recognise that was would have never been your intention. If nothing else comes out of it then hopefully banks will improve their procedure to ensure things like this don't happen in the future.

All we can say is well done to those people with integrity, those who were not mis-sold and are not jumping on the bandwagon to claim money that shouldn't be there's.

Rafter

I think the balance is tipped well in your favour Martin.

It is true that there is some 'consumer abuse' so people getting premiums refunded because they haven't needed to claim on insurance that they took out in good faith.

I also feel it is unfair on the likes of Co-op who have a packaged account that is actually quite good value and recommended - but yet still customers who took it out and (fortunately) didn't need to claim see it as perfectly reasonable to claim they were mis-sold.

The only solution seems to be to ban cross selling all together or make it very clear on products sold together that one is not conditional on taking the other - that way the level of misunderstanding will reduce.

R.

kimnpat

Whilst I would not say that you actually push the "compensation culture" the tools that you provide, as with most things in life, are open to manipulation by others. Your accusers need to realise that those who drive the compensation culture (solicitors and other legal advisors) are the ones that need to be curtailed and the best way to do that would be regulation. However, as with everything else, that involves money and would indeed be very costly.

It is for this reason that I believe the government, in trying to tackle this growing problem, legislate against the end consumer. However, this does nothing but exacerbate the problem by creating an 'us' against 'them' mentality. Solicitors that specialise in this field see these cases as a challenge and get a buzz from beating the system - with insurance companies providing an income if they lose, whilst the end consumer sees it as a fight against the government too, which then creates a no holds barred mindset.

Although a huge percentage of claimants are genuine, the government still choose to legislate against them. This, I believe, is the wrong approach as it not only deters the genuinely aggrieved, but also creates animosity as those who are "in it for a quick buck" are the ones most likely to continue.

A way forward could be to impose substantial fines on the solicitor's as well as the claimant for unsuccessful cases. This way, they would not only have wasted their time, for which they are not paid, but will incur debts as well. They could also look at how reliant a company is on the insurance paid for unsuccessful cases. Maybe that would make them less willing to take on a case, unless it genuinely merits compensation.

Concerning financial education in this country, I also agree when you stated "we are still a primarily, financially illiterate nation – and confusion marketing takes advantage." However, I am afraid that you also have to apportion your share of the blame for this as well. For this, I refer to this week's email in which it was claimed:

"Get Sky TV for equiv £3/mth. Combine £126 cashback deal & £100 M&S vch on basic package"

Closer inspection of this offer reveals:
1. You will have to pay more than £3 a month.
2. The money you can expect back is in the form of a voucher for M&S and £126.25 cashback.

Firstly, the value of the M&S voucher is worth considerably less if, like me, you do not shop there regularly and can buy goods of equal value for less, as I do (I can buy the M&S branded pelerine school socks for £5.00 on the market, but these are £9.00 in store. That means the voucher will get me 11 packs, when I can already get that many for £55. There are similar examples I can highlight on other purchases).

Secondly, the cashback is not guaranteed (although your website states this in the small print - the headline is still misleading) and the voucher from Sky cannot be used in conjunction with any other offer - which immediately means you have to choose one. I am a member of a few cashback websites so am aware that they stipulate the same, meaning that you cannot have both.

Finally, but perhaps most damning, is that the voucher is awarded on a Sky+ package, which clearly states that you have to have a Sky line rental of £14.50 per month.

All of this means that you will have to pay £36 a month, which is £432 a year, and can have an M&S voucher for £100 (making it £332 a year) or unguaranteed cashback of £126.25 (making it £305.75 a year). This makes the cheapest option, if you get the cashback, the equivalent of £25.48 a month, or the voucher option the equivalent of £27.67 a month. Both options substantially more than the under £3 initially claimed.

I am afraid that deserves a slap on the wrist Mr Lewis, as any novice just jumping in and signing would have to pay more in the first month, than what you led to believe would be in a year. What's more, these offers are dependant upon the signing of a 12 month contract. Tut. Tut.

However, it is not all bad - I did get a Friends and Family Railcard for £13 through your site last year, which comes in handy for a day out at the beach. Therefore, thanks are due too.:beer:

Errata

Only 50 years ago the bank manager in his bowler hat was a pillar of the community. A paternal figure to respect, with a sense of care and whose word was gold.

Come on, that's not true and you know it. That sort of Alice in Wonderland statement is simply your attempt to rewrite history to suit your financial view.

Mozette

So why do people think they can get out of paying anything nowadays? eg: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4420481
I never recall any 'reclaiming' advice that says IF you actually were missold the product; the assumption seems to be that you just reclaim it anyway. It might be legal, but it is as immoral as the few who were missold in my opinion. God forbid anyone ever take responsibility for their actions!

Obviously_the_best

I'm sorry Martin, but if your 'flight delay compensation' articles aren't encouraging compensation culture than I don't know what is.

You now persuaded workshy moneygrabbing @rses to check through all of their holidays in the last six years just incase they can get some money back, despite the fact they can't even remember whether there was a delay or not.


Just whilst I'm venting, another thing I hate is general ignorance, for example the HMV gift cards. If HMV had accepted the gift cards they may have never got back on their feet, you didn't know at the time. When you're short on cash, a good way to get the business running again isn't to give out stock with no income is it?