MSE News: Lloyds admits PPI complaints 'issues' after newspaper probe

Former_MSE_Helen

"Lloyds Banking Group has admitted 'issues' with the handling of customers' PPI complaints, following an investigation..."

Read the full story:

Lloyds admits PPI complaints 'issues' after newspaper probe



Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

Pincher

I am Spartacus!

Crucify them all, or let them all go?

Crucify them ALL, and you still don't get those cold calling opportunistic leeches.

Go through the application forms, get a list of all the ones made by parasitic claim advisors. Do a dawn raid on these offices, and line them up outside. Ask them who is in charge.

If they all shout I am, crucify them all.
If no one claims responsibility, crucify them all.
If some of them claim responsibility, crucify them, and let the rest go.

Consumerist

Pincher wrote: »

I am Spartacus!
. . . Go through the application forms, get a list of all the ones made by parasitic claim advisors. . .

As opposed to those parasitic bankers who sold inappropriate PPI, do you mean?

dunstonh

Whilst Lloyds carry the responsibility, it was Deloitte that the work was contracted out to and it was their staff or contract workers that actually made those decisions. Not Lloyds.

Lloyd's internal manual, The Lighthouse Guide, said "If some or all of the documentation is missing it should not stop you being able to undertake a review." It added that handlers should work on the assumption that sales processes across the group were "compliant and robust" despite Lloyds admitting to mis-selling products. - that is the correct approach unless the documentation available suggests otherwise. It appears that someone externally interpreted that in an inappropriate way.

You have to work from the assumption that the process was followed unless there is evidence or sufficient indication that those processes were not followed. It should also be noted that missing information or insignificant issues to not automatically mean a complaint should be upheld. You have humans making judgement calls on paperwork from many years ago which is often incomplete or inadequate by todays standards on sales made by humans who were were often poorly trained and didnt know the importance of audit trails to humans who probably have poor recollection as well. It is a recipe for mistakes and inconsistencies. Then you have claims companies throwing in fraudulent and try-it-on complaints making all sorts of lies and allegations in the hope of a quick financial gain.

Consumerist

dunstonh wrote: »

. . . It added that handlers should work on the assumption that sales processes across the group were "compliant and robust"

That sounds to me like an open invitation to reject all claims, if you ask me, and "interpreted that in an inappropriate way" sounds like a gross understatement of the outcome.

Comyface

Consumerist wrote: »

That sounds to me like an open invitation to reject all claims, if you ask me, and "interpreted that in an inappropriate way" sounds like a gross understatement of the outcome.

On its own, yes, maybe it does sound like that. But that's not the whole guidance. And the statistics don't bear that out. Lloyds are upholding more than they're defending. By a long way.

Consumerist

Comyface wrote: »

On its own, yes, maybe it does sound like that. But that's not the whole guidance. And the statistics don't bear that out. Lloyds are upholding more than they're defending. By a long way.

So they were doing so well, statistically, that they had to fire Deloits?

I don't follow the logic but that's modern banking, I guess.

dunstonh

Consumerist wrote: »

That sounds to me like an open invitation to reject all claims, if you ask me, and "interpreted that in an inappropriate way" sounds like a gross understatement of the outcome.

UK law puts the onus on the person that is making the allegation to provide the evidence. Financial services regulation is a little more consumer friendly than law as it requires the firm to use documents it holds to support errors etc.

Surely you dont want a situation where everyone can make any allegation they like and are automatically believed even if there is no evidence to support it? That would be anarchy.

So they were doing so well, statistically, that they had to fire Deloits?

I don't follow the logic but that's modern banking, I guess.

Deloitte & lloyds fell out. This could be the reason. It could be something else. We dont know. However, Lloyds is facing the rap for the actions of a third party. In that situation, wouldnt you be angry at the third party?

Brains64

It's interesting what Martin Lewis himself said>>> :money: regarding this because it does seem to me that he is backing up a lot of my own and other customers initial suspicions concerning the way banks handle PPI claims, namely, that banks (whether in-house or third party staff) do play mind games to fob customers off, presumably, in the hope that people will give up a claim effort thinking they have no case, must stress, I'm not saying that this is definitely what is going on although I would have thought it was but if Martin is saying it and he knows a lot more than most about this jungle then it's very hard to argue that there isn't something in it.

javorb

is this a surprise ,the banking industry is full of criminals who get bonuses for ripping off customers ,then go tits up and get bailed out from taxplayers ,then they judge everybody by credit scoring and the way we have handled our finances over the last 6 years ,the banks get cheap money to lend but what kind of credit score would the banks have

[Deleted User]

Brains64 wrote: »

I'm not saying that this is definitely what is going on although I would have thought it was

As usual, your post is full of contradictions.