Think Money Bank Account

[Deleted User]

Tommytickle wrote: »

My advice, apply for everything you can, even if you have little evidence, if they dismiss it go to the relevant appeal body.

It's unwise to advise people to complain where there is no complaint.

As to always being" dismissive", that's a symptom of the current situation. PPI complaints are beginning to dwindle now and the forum is no longer busy with mainly truly genuine complaints. There was a time when the "PPI Success and failures" thread had thirty plus posts per day. Now it hardly garners one per day.

Many of the posts now are from stragglers who are late to the party, but also from chancers who just hope for an easy buck.

The OP of this thread was asking about the possibility of making a complaint about a perfectly sound financial service, so it's hardly surprising the post was given short shift.

Speaking personally, I have no links to any financial institution and obtained a PPI refund of over £20K in 2012.

dunstonh

Looking forward to the next big round of claims, undisclosed commission on insurance and pension policies anyone?

What undisclosed commission would that be then?

mmm, I've seen quite a few of these guy's posts, wonder if they have interests in some of the big banks at all...? Always dismissing people's claims, they must be positively salivating at the deadline coming in for PPI!

If you really had seen the posts you would know that is not the case.

Why don't you try helping people rather than posting that rubbish?

Tommytickle

The banks have been shafting us for years so why shouldnt everyone get a slice of the pie. The redistribution of funds from the banks to the general public through compensation for numerous misdemenours has been the best thing to happen over the last 5 years in the UK(and some say its kept the uk economy ticking). So i say to everyone, apply for everything and anything you can, banks have been paying out on the flimsiest of evidence, they just cant afford to administer this process(teams of thousands of temps) so its cheaper for them to pay up rather than have the process dragging on.

As i said, undisclosed commission on financial products is the next biggie in this space, gonna cost them 10s of Billions! Woo hoo!

dunstonh

As i said, undisclosed commission on financial products is the next biggie in this space, gonna cost them 10s of Billions! Woo hoo!

As I said, what undisclosed commission would that be?

Commission disclosure came in 1994. More than 15 years ago. So, its are barred from legal action. Plus, commission disclosure when selling own brand product was not required. That means banks dont have to worry.

If you are going to make stuff up, you will need to do better than that.

Tommytickle

I believe its called the Plevin case.

Check out sky news story on 23rd Jan on it(not allowed to post link)

Note the words 'commission', 'disclose', and 'compensation'!

[Deleted User]

Do not feed.

dunstonh

I believe its called the Plevin case.

We are well versed on Plevin. I'm afraid it is not going to be the windfall you think it is. The FCA have already put it into consultation and published their proposals.

1 - It applies on debts regulated under the consumer credit act and associated sales built in with it. So, it will only be PPI. Not pensions or other products. (it was a failure under section 140A of the CCA 1974. So, it cannot apply to things that do not fall under that)
2 - It only applies to complaints that are rejected. Not upheld
3 - it only applies to PPI where the commission was in excess of 50% of the premium. The lender will have to refund the excess above that amount. e.g 1: £1000 PPI premium with commission rate of 55% (£550) would see the bank needing to refund the 5% over the 50% figure. That is £50 plus interest. e.g 2: £1000 PPI premium with commission rate of 49% would see the bank refunding zero as its below 50%

The Plevin ruling will see extra paid out but by the banks but it will be relatively small in comparison to amounts already paid. For example, it is unlikely to be an issue with MPPI as that is standalone (not built into the debt and therefore does not fall under S.140A of the CCA) and commission rates on that are typically around the 15%-30% range.

Secured loans and second charge loans long with personal loans are the ones most likely to suffer redress payments but they have to fall within s.140A of the CCA. The FCA say that only around 42% of them do. However, again, the impact is likely to be relatively small as most loan PPI complaints get upheld. Upheld complaints are not affected by Plevin as 100% of the premium has been refunded (so nothing else to refund).

Plus, it will only be applied to those that complain. Not those that do not. The FCA have confirmed: "We do not propose to require (or otherwise expect) firms to proactively review PPI sales falling within the scope of s.140A CCA or to proactively review against the new rules and guidance previously rejected PPI complaints. "

So, your hopes on billions more redress across other product types are completely wrong.

Tommytickle

Cheers, very detailed and interesting info. Why then the warnings of 'catastrophe' from the industry via the MSM then i wonder.... curious indeed. Were the FCA(FSA) saying similar things before the PPI atom bomb blew?..

dunstonh

Why then the warnings of 'catastrophe' from the industry via the MSM then i wonder.

That is how the media works. I dont know what you profession/industry is but if you ever read articles related to that, you will no doubt see things that are just plain wrong or sensationalised. So, if they are doing that to your industry, you know they are doing it to others.

Plus, the full judgement on the court case takes some time to appear and be analysed and points of law examined. It took the FCA almost a year to get to their proposals. The media publish within 24 hours of the ruling with a journalist opinion and maybe a few first impression "on call" industry specialists who love to get their name in the press.

Were the FCA(FSA) saying similar things before the PPI atom bomb blew?..

We have had a few years of the FCA now and it does appear to be running differently to the FSA (despite it being in the same building and the same staff). The FSA was box ticking and reactive. The FCA is more forward thinking. It sill has some FSA mentality and can sometimes be stubborn but it is improving. The FSA missed everything because it looked at the insignificant. This is partly why the PRA was formed to take on a lot of that responsibility. The FCA is picking up on issues quicker.

With PPI, the FSA was actually part of the problem. It knew PPI was sold this way for 20 years. It virtually changed its mind overnight then applied its rules retrospectively (which was what the court case was about - could the FSA do that - not to do with PPI as the media report it. Although it was PPI that was driving the reason for the case).