Legal & general mppi

Insider101

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Stats can say whatever you want. In a FOS report some years ago they stated that less than 20% of people who get rejected eventually get all the way through the FOS process. Undoubtedly some people are just trying it on with no knowledge but a lot also give up because they don't want go through it all again. For all the people who give up, the bank etc save on redress costs and this offsets the costs of paying the FOS referral fee.

Friends Prov did this in the endowment claim period and got fined £750,000 that they would have saved by rejecting 250 cases

Some valid points here but a bit off topic. The original point was that the uphold rate was claimed to be 60% which was described as "way too high". Having looked at the above the most recent figures show 48'%, i.e. a fairly even split between complaints decided in favour of the customer and those decided in favour of the firm. This is consistent with the view that the cases being taken to FOS are those where there is genuine cause for disagreement.

The other thing is that from personal experience, if you exclude the try-it-on complaints from people who don't even have PPI, it is a minority of PPI complaints which are rejected completely.

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Surely he should ask for the fee to be refunded from the network. He is paying a slice/fee of his earnings for the support and ancillary services they provide.

Their contracts allow networks to stitch advisers up in this regard.

They also require directors of those trading as limited companies to give personal guarantees.

If there was no product sold then the complainant had no grounds for a claim and it should have been rejected and no fee charged. Again this highlights the inadequacy of some FOS adjudicators

Unfortunately, adjudicators receive incentive payments based on the number of cases they "close". If a case is deemed not to count for charging purposes, it does not count to their incentive.

Unlike small brokers, they have no incentive to foster an ongoing relationship with the consumer - so they have a clear conflict of interest which is as bad, if not worse, than those facing advisers.

I guess it is easier for the network to just pass the fee on than argue the point fully and is something people need to be aware of before joining a network as he could of had this as part of the 25 free cases

Absolutely. Sadly, few are until it is too late.

saver861

Insider101 wrote: »

The most recent figures I can find are below and indicate that the overall uphold rate is 48%

http://!!!!!!!!ntswood.com/2014/03/21/new-fos-figures-ppi-uphold-reasons-and-newcomers/

The data figures I'm looking at for the period Jan-June (6 months) states an average of 64% for PPI complaints in favour of the consumer.

http://www.ombudsman-complaints-data.org.uk/

magpiecottage

saver861 wrote: »

The data figures I'm looking at for the period Jan-June (6 months) states an average of 64% for PPI complaints in favour of the consumer.

http://www.ombudsman-complaints-data.org.uk/

You are looking at cases that get to FOS, not all complaints.

There is also no distinction between MPPI and other forms. This is unfortunate as it would give a far clearer picture.

Going right back to the original post, though, it was a 2001 sale. At that time, PPI was not subject to statutory regulation.

That means the question of whether FOS actually has jurisdiction is unclear. If the OP can tell us who the broker was we might be able to comment on this but not othjerwise.

[Deleted User]

magpiecottage wrote: »

If the OP can tell us who the broker was we might be able to comment on this but not otherwise.

Mac148 never returned to the thread (or the forum) after his initial two posts;
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/member.php?u=2326975

This thread has rather moved on to general PPI and FOS discussion since then, hence the large number of posts..

saver861

magpiecottage wrote: »

You are looking at cases that get to FOS, not all complaints.

There is also no distinction between MPPI and other forms. This is unfortunate as it would give a far clearer picture.

Indeed I am looking at the cases that reach FOS - fact is, over 60% are upheld by the FOS and while some might be genuinely a toss of a coin, these percentages demonstrate way too many are being turned down at the inital stage with the bank.

When I spoke to the FOS the lady did hazard a guess at 10% being MPPI. Certaintly it is true there are considerably fewer MPPI cases.