MSE News: Vote 'yes' for CPP redress

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

What we are looking at ladies and gentlemen is a cynical political whim that costs the banks (yes never mind CPP) very little compared to other types of misselling that has defined their culture over the past umpteen years.

It is clear that even industry insiders and supposed informed commentators on this thread do not understand where the money was creamed off in this dirty little game of insurance. It wasn't really the insurance company wot did it because there was initially I think some kind of credible reasoning behind the invention of the product, although I don't doubt one or two within CPP did very well for a while after they let the banks run with it in their own way.

You see, dirty games are constantly being played out using insurance products because they are complex and only understood by insiders. And many insurance products are so vague in their promise that they can be tuned quite aggressively to profit without changing any wording. All that is required is a word from top management to turn the tap right down. That sort of product is right up the banks' street. They in fact dreamed up many of them including the volume misselling of CPP's insurance product alongside in branch and telephone servicing of customer accounts. They even had the gall to try to sell identity theft insurance specifically to customers who had just suffered exactly that ! It was essentially useless, especially in the case where the horse had just bolted.

Large chunks of the insurance industry many years ago decided to turn a blind eye to how their products were sold by clever bank middlemen and to let the bank middlemen issue policies and even set up claims handling services for unusual amounts of commission/profit/outsource fees (call it what you will because after a number of regulatory initiatives that tried to outlaw secret commissions, insurers essentially washed their hands of the question of fair commissions and started offering insurance at a "net" price to volume seller partners). I vaguely recall reading once upon a time that for "identity theft" insurance, less than 20% typically of the insurance "premium" collected from the customer by direct debit through the bank actually got used for paying the cost of claims. The rest went on sellers commissions and nefarious additional services that cost very little to administer and of course handsome profits to the banks. Don't let me mislead you into thinking that the insurance companies are always the junior partner. There are some very big ones out there who enjoy rather strange relationships with banks. Sometimes, as with PPI we actually saw banks become so greedy as to buy the insurance companies and in some cases run them offshore for tax purposes that would make even Google Starbucks Paypal and Amazon blush.

Just re-analyse this for a moment. What I just told you was that the banks decided to throw the weight behind and market this identity theft product aggressively to their own customer base knowing full well that it was a useless product but telling their customers that it was a safety net for a growing problem i.e. identity theft / card fraud etc.

In other threads under the Banking and Current Accounts forum and Credit Cards forum we read more and more about identity theft problems.

What has been going on? I can remember when identity theft was a very rarely used phrase. Sure, you could call nicking a co-worker's chequebook and using the cheques as your own a kind of identity theft if you like and that goes back a long way - I can remember an incident like that 25 years ago in 1988. In those days you could check the handwriting on the cheques with your suspect's handwriting and hey presto - you're nicked! But what we are really talking about in the modern sense is electronically assisted ID Theft where most of the damage is done by tricking electronic systems not people - ok it might be assisted by a human controlled gateway letting a stolen bank statement get used as proof of ID but essentially that gateway is a computer gateway and once opened it can lead to a crescendo of other computer access for a fraudster - issue of cards, credit, PINs, ability to change addresses, online banking access, opening of further accounts with other institutions, the works.

To my mind this type of problem only surfaced in the general public consciousness in the last 10 years - maybe only in the last six or seven years to any regularly noticeable effect and it burgeoned just enough to make selling Identity Theft insurance a piece of cake. Did it just happen to correspond with the aggressive selling of an identity theft protection product (by banks primarily)? Which came first? Sure I am being very provocative with my wondering. But there was a conflict of interest perhaps, wasn't there?

Remember banks have never lost anything due to identity theft. They charge it to the customer base every which way they can and what better way than to sell a useless insurance product based on the fear factor? It wasn't sold on anything else because it was pretty much a hollow product with very little chance of paying out much at all in claims so any lengthy explanation of how it worked would inevitably be self-defeating to the salesperson.

So I wonder if whilst they were busy selling identity theft insurance if banks were tempted not to do much about vulnerability of their systems to identity theft ? Would have been bad for the bank's insurance commissions and fees if customers got the impression identity theft would never happen to them!

Funny old business banking - especially when mixed with insurance. No-one on the outside even begins to understand it most of the time

So why wasn't PPI reclaiming made as easy as this? There was afterall lots of talk of letters being sent by banks to all their PPI customers of old - but it never happened did it? Too much money in PPI. Powers that be decided it was best to let the banks keep closer tabs on it or some might get hurt.

Funny old business politics - especially when mixed with banking. Everyone on the outside knows it is as bent as a nine bob note but most of the time we can do sod all about it

kitegirl

I got this letter about CPP about 2 weeks ago. This should be interesting!

antirobots

WAS MIS-SOLD EVEN WHEN MANY YEARS AGO. It is very unfair and unethical that pre 2005 people are not included and not helped out by being written to. The records of all of our policies are still with the organisation and therefore on record. MY card was sold (miss-sold as being a necessary) to me by Sainsburys bank with sale of a Sainsburys Bank credit card. Sainsburys bank is not included in the current cpp redress. Bank of Scotland is somehow involved with Sainsburys bank; but we cannot all be experts in banks' history. Banks and CPP are together just going all devious so that they can leave a whole bunch of people out. We have all paid at least £40 per year for so many years. I have had strangely vague useless letters from Bank of Scotland. This situation for pre 2005 customers and two linked banks must be clarified. Does this mean that Bank of Scotland and Sainsburys bank wants to act in league with the fraudulent founder of CPP card protection?

mr_cr

Just checking my mail (recently moved) and I have a letter from CPP from August to my old address saying they sent me a chque for a refund but as this has not been cashed to give them a call (I did not receive this cheque but this could be waiting for me at the old property).
And a new letter dated Sep to my current address which says I may be entitled to compensation and they will write to me again in next 12 weeks.
So my question is how much would they have sent me in that first cheque and if I can find it will it still be bankable?
Have been a member of CPP for over 10 years.

jaimeanddean

Sorry but I am totally clueless with all this !!!

We have taken out various insurances, loans, mortgage over the years but I haven't got a clue about this CPP or the PPI.

How can I find out if I have been sold or mis-sold either ???
Just wondered if it was something worth looking into if a refund was due ???

Thanx

:huh::huh::huh:

:xmastree::xmassign::rudolf::santa2:

-taff

there is no refund, and there is no 'claiming' There is complaining about a product thatw asn't sodl in your best interests...

read this carefully. Pay attention to the difference between open and closed accounts. You don't need T&Cs, you need to know if you paid it.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/ppi-loan-insurance

chrisfreelander54

I received the 2nd letter from CCP asking me to vote, which has been filled in ready to return tomorrow.

eirelav1962

How do you claim back ccp think I had had it away back 2003 but prob can't claim it back?

bigwoodman

Do I write to HSBC claiming the Card Guard mis-selling reimburseemnt from when I was persuaded to join in 1998 to 2005 or do I wait until the CPP scheme is finalised

conned_again

All of the current miss-selling discussions appear to be centred on CPP and its selling agents (most of the big banks). What about similar Card Care products from other financial organisations not already mentioned. I have 'Card Care' from Halifax which I believe was (miss) sold to me when I opened an account with them. Do I also have a case for miss-selling?