Is it common for banks to lie when asking for PPI back?

magpiecottage

xHannahx wrote: »

Their lies get better than this. I've seen several CMC claims their client didn't know they had the about the policy, yet the clients had made claims against the policy.

And that is ignoring all those CMCs who simply go in for advanced fee fraud.

Insider101

xHannahx wrote: »

Their lies get better than this. I've seen several CMC claims their client didn't know they had the about the policy, yet the clients had made claims against the policy.

Keep them coming. What about the people who had 12 months full sick pay but were self employed!!!

addedvaluebob

All examples from Ombudsman decisions, these are all cases where the complaint was upheld by the adjudicator and the company appealed.

If the financial services industry had not mis-sold this product in the first place they would not now be paying the billions in compensation




Mislead verb
past tense: misled;

cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression.

synonyms: deceive, delude, take in, lie to, fool, hoodwink, lead astray, give wrong information to

I note that by adding the total interest payable on the PPI premium, the cost of the premium would increase by approximately 38%. I am not satisfied that the way in which the costs were disclosed to Ms N was fair, and I am persuaded that she was likely misled into thinking the PPI cost less than it did.


Ultimately, however, I consider it is more likely that the PPI was added without Mrs B’s explicit consent.


I am not satisfied that the way in which the costs were likely disclosed to Miss T and Mr D was fair, and I am persuaded that they were likely misled into thinking the PPI cost less than it did.


Barclays wrongly, and repeatedly, told Mrs J that she could not manage the portfolio herself without a court order. If Barclays had not misled Mrs J, she would not have applied for the court order.


I therefore remain satisfied that the firm misled Mr A about the nature of the fees it would charge.


I am not satisfied that the way in which the costs were disclosed to Mr and Mrs R was fair, and I am persuaded that they were likely misled into thinking the PPI cost less than it did


I am aware of the disposable income figure recorded by the adviser at the time of sale, but I have serious doubts about its accuracy. It does seem particularly high for someone who was reliant on benefits and receiving assistance with her mortgage payments.

I am not satisfied that the way in which the costs were disclosed to Miss G was fair, and I am persuaded that she was likely misled into thinking the PPI cost less than it did.

I indicated my concern in my provisional decision that I had been given three differing accounts by Sesame of what was said during that telephone call. Sesame has now given me a fourth materially different account. Sesame has still not explained why these accounts differ.

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

I note that by adding the total interest payable on the PPI premium, the cost of the premium would increase by approximately 38%. I am not satisfied that the way in which the costs were disclosed to Ms N was fair, and I am persuaded that she was likely misled into thinking the PPI cost less than it did.

This thread considers lies during trhe compalints process By contrast in the case you cite, the Ombudsman has here considered whether the disclosure was sufficiently clear at the point of sale.

There is something I would say about Sesame, though. Some years ago, I did work for them over a period of several months. During that time I reckon about five times a week I would sit with a letter in one hand insisting that the Fact Find I held in my other hand never existed.

Where I, and my colleagues, believed a complaint could not be defended on the basis of the evidence available it was upheld. With a £350 fee (as it then was) to go to FOS win or lose, there was no incentive to defend the indefensible.

Ultimately, however, I consider it is more likely that the PPI was added without Mrs B’s explicit consent.

Ditto

I am not satisfied that the way in which the costs were likely disclosed to Miss T and Mr D was fair, and I am persuaded that they were likely misled into thinking the PPI cost less than it did.

Ditto

Barclays wrongly, and repeatedly, told Mrs J that she could not manage the portfolio herself without a court order. If Barclays had not misled Mrs J, she would not have applied for the court order.

Ditto

I therefore remain satisfied that the firm misled Mr A about the nature of the fees it would charge.

Ditto

I am not satisfied that the way in which the costs were disclosed to Mr and Mrs R was fair, and I am persuaded that they were likely misled into thinking the PPI cost less than it did

Ditto

I am aware of the disposable income figure recorded by the adviser at the time of sale, but I have serious doubts about its accuracy. It does seem particularly high for someone who was reliant on benefits and receiving assistance with her mortgage payments.

Ditto

I am not satisfied that the way in which the costs were disclosed to Miss G was fair, and I am persuaded that she was likely misled into thinking the PPI cost less than it did.

Ditto

I indicated my concern in my provisional decision that I had been given three differing accounts by Sesame of what was said during that telephone call. Sesame has now given me a fourth materially different account. Sesame has still not explained why these accounts differ.

I will concede that there is a discrepancy in this one. That is, though, just one case.

So, whilst I have not suggested banks never lie, I do not think it common in the handling of complaints - except, perhaps where they automatically uphold one because it would cost more to defend that to just pay out.

Sesame is also not a bank. It is a network of advisers - or rather it was until it closed down a fortnight ago.

I would also point out that the Ombudsman says "Sesame accepts that it is responsible for this sale" - there is no suggestion that it attempted to pretend the policy did not exist.

Insider101

magpiecottage wrote: »

Clearly you do not know how much banks pay contractors. The minimum wage is £6.50 per hour.

Complaint handling roles, according to an e-mail I received yesterday, are around £170 for a 7½ hour day. That is just over £22 an hour. Allow, say, 20% of that as overheads and you still get to about £18 an hour. I would not call a figure more than 2½ times the minimum wage as "little more than" it.

The requirements for the role are:

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]a minimum of 12 months regulated complaint handling experience, a strong customer services background, excellent analytical/systems ability and good communication skills, both written and verbal.

Experience of investigating and resolving complaints using relevant procedures and decision trees is essential.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]"

Give my regards to Messrs Hazell & Carr :D:D

Insider101

addedvaluebob wrote: »

All examples from Ombudsman decisions, these are all cases where the complaint was upheld by the adjudicator and the company appealed.

If the financial services industry had not mis-sold this product in the first place they would not now be paying the billions in compensation




Mislead verb
past tense: misled;

cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression.

synonyms: deceive, delude, take in, lie to, fool, hoodwink, lead astray, give wrong information to

I note that by adding the total interest payable on the PPI premium, the cost of the premium would increase by approximately 38%. I am not satisfied that the way in which the costs were disclosed to Ms N was fair, and I am persuaded that she was likely misled into thinking the PPI cost less than it did.


Ultimately, however, I consider it is more likely that the PPI was added without Mrs B’s explicit consent.


I am not satisfied that the way in which the costs were likely disclosed to Miss T and Mr D was fair, and I am persuaded that they were likely misled into thinking the PPI cost less than it did.


Barclays wrongly, and repeatedly, told Mrs J that she could not manage the portfolio herself without a court order. If Barclays had not misled Mrs J, she would not have applied for the court order.


I therefore remain satisfied that the firm misled Mr A about the nature of the fees it would charge.


I am not satisfied that the way in which the costs were disclosed to Mr and Mrs R was fair, and I am persuaded that they were likely misled into thinking the PPI cost less than it did


I am aware of the disposable income figure recorded by the adviser at the time of sale, but I have serious doubts about its accuracy. It does seem particularly high for someone who was reliant on benefits and receiving assistance with her mortgage payments.

I am not satisfied that the way in which the costs were disclosed to Miss G was fair, and I am persuaded that she was likely misled into thinking the PPI cost less than it did.

I indicated my concern in my provisional decision that I had been given three differing accounts by Sesame of what was said during that telephone call. Sesame has now given me a fourth materially different account. Sesame has still not explained why these accounts differ.

A large number of "I am persuaded", "I consider", "I am not satisfied" on these cases, based on very little supporting evidence. Which basically sums up the way the FOS operates. I have seen them uphold any number of cases which would have been laughed out of any court in the land.

With regards to PPI cases for example, they are invariably "persuaded" that anyone with six months sick pay or more can't have had the policy information properly provided to them or they wouldn't have taken it. They will therefore uphold unless the firm can provide a call recording proving their point.I can even quote the line from their standard letter which says something like "I do not believe that [company X] made the terms & conditions of the policy clear to [Complainant] and had it done so, I do not believe that he would have thought that the policy represented value for money. For this reason, I think Mr Y's complaint should be upheld". No consideration whatsoever to the facts or evidence, a simple decision tree 6 months or more sick pay = uphold.

Effectively, their decisions reverse the burden of proof. With this in mind it's hard to take them as any kind of gospel. Especially if, as you have stated, complaints such as the above were upheld despite clear and obvious contradictions in the complainant's story.

magpiecottage

Insider101 wrote: »

A large number of "I am persuaded", "I consider", "I am not satisfied" on these cases, based on very little supporting evidence. Which basically sums up the way the FOS operates. I have seen them uphold any number of cases which would have been laughed out of any court in the land.

Even in the cases I have quoted, FOS cannot bring themselves to say that the complainant has clearly breached the Fraud Act.

With regards to PPI cases for example, they are invariably "persuaded" that anyone with six months sick pay or more can't have had the policy information properly provided to them or they wouldn't have taken it.

To be fair, they are becoming a little more sensible about this now - particularly in respect of mortgage PPI.

There does, though, seem to be a bit of a hierarchy in terms of quality of those working in complaints. Laurie Slade, the old insurance ombudsman, once reflected that his better staff would move to insurance companies because they paid more. This is still the case (and contradicts addedvaluebob's "minimum wage" assertion).

The next tier is FOS. Some qualifications are usually required - a couple of years ago I saw an ad for Law graduates. They had did not need financial services qualifications or experience and presumably were graduates left after real law firms had taken the better ones but at least some knowledge.

You need no qualifications at all to work as an ambulance chaser, though.

addedvaluebob

'I run a consultancy to help Independent Financial Advisers to comply with their rules and resolve complaints'

You don't need any qualifications to do this either or work for FOS, remember also that many CMC's are run by current and former financial advisers as well as solicitors who are qualified.

It is a myth put out by the financial services industry that all CMC's are staffed by minimum wage temps operating on sales targets to dissuade people from making a complaint

Nasqueron

addedvaluebob wrote: »

It is a myth put out by the financial services industry that all CMC's are staffed by minimum wage temps operating on sales targets to dissuade people from making a complaint

Nope, it's to dissuade them from using a CMC when they can do it themselves as this site also promotes - most of the bank PPI reclaim forms state that you do not need to use a CMC either.

Insider101

addedvaluebob wrote: »

'I run a consultancy to help Independent Financial Advisers to comply with their rules and resolve complaints'

You don't need any qualifications to do this either or work for FOS, remember also that many CMC's are run by current and former financial advisers as well as solicitors who are qualified.

No IFA firm nowadays is going to contract out complaints handling work to a consultant who is not at least FPC and more realistically level 4 diploma qualified. As regards CMCs being run by financial advisers, name them. I can't really see this, most IFAs I know regard CMCs as lower than a snakes belly!!!

It is a myth put out by the financial services industry that all CMC's are staffed by minimum wage temps operating on sales targets to dissuade people from making a complaint

If it's a "myth" then it's not a very good one, since Magpie Cottage is the first person I've ever heard mention it. What you suggest above is completely illogical as it would not dissuade people from actually making a complaint, just from going to a CMC. FOS show no difference in their uphold rate for CMC complaints as compared to direct ones. There is just no reason for anyone with even average intelligence to use one!