We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Surge in packaged account complaints
Mersey_2
Posts: 1,679 Forumite
The number of complaints received re packaged bank accounts in 2015 was an increase of 477% on 2013/14.
32,720 complaints were received by the Financial Ombudsman Service in April-December 2015.
32% were upheld by the Ombudsman.
32,720 complaints were received by the Financial Ombudsman Service in April-December 2015.
32% were upheld by the Ombudsman.
Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.
0
Comments
-
The fact 68% were rejected rather suggests that a large majority are "try it on" / borderline fraud from people seeing this as a potential payday and are prepared to flat out lie to try and get cash. The FOS consumer bias refuses to accept customers might be lying to get money meaning there is no risk in claiming and putting in whatever nonsense you like.
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
"FOS consumer bias" - thankfully: it's called redress.
Thankfully Martin Lewis (on ITV now) doesn't have the attitude of some on here. Complain to the Ombudsman is the advice, as banks mishandle complaints too. 70% succeed with PPI complaints. No doubt there'll be a further surge before any 2018 deadline.
Yes fraud is wrong and more should be prosecuted, including those attempting to claim the £33m Lottery's then-unclaimed win.Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0 -
"FOS consumer bias" - thankfully: it's called redress.
Thankfully Martin Lewis (on ITV now) doesn't have the attitude of some on here. Complain to the Ombudsman is the advice, as banks mishandle complaints too. 70% succeed with PPI complaints. No doubt there'll be a further surge before any 2018 deadline.
Yes fraud is wrong and more should be prosecuted, including those attempting to claim the £33m Lottery's then-unclaimed win.
When I say "FOS consumer bias" I refer to the fact they won't even consider the idea that customers may be lying (they normally use "mistaken") - the fact the biased FOS is rejecting 68% of complaints says to me an awful lot of people are flat out lying about being miss-sold and should be prosecuted for fraudSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
"FOS consumer bias" - thankfully: it's called redress.
consumer bias and redress are two different things.
The FOS is very liberal in the way it acts. It would never accuse even the most obvious fraud as being a fraud. It would say the person was mistaken.Thankfully Martin Lewis (on ITV now) doesn't have the attitude of some on here. Complain to the Ombudsman is the advice, as banks mishandle complaints too. 70% succeed with PPI complaints. No doubt there'll be a further surge before any 2018 deadline.
PPI and packaged accounts are very different. One has a near 2/3 uphold rate and the other a 2/3 rejection rate.Yes fraud is wrong and more should be prosecuted, including those attempting to claim the £33m Lottery's then-unclaimed win.
Very true. That was a potential £33 million fraud. Attempted theft of £33million should be very serious and needs to be treated as such.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
When I say "FOS consumer bias" I refer to the fact they won't even consider the idea that customers may be lying (they normally use "mistaken") - the fact the biased FOS is rejecting 68% of complaints says to me an awful lot of people are flat out lying about being miss-sold and should be prosecuted for fraud
So you feel the independent Ombudsman shows consumer bias when upholding 32% of such complaint referrals.
But you agree with them when they reject 68%.
I now see your thought process.Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0 -
So you feel the independent Ombudsman shows consumer bias when upholding 32% of such complaint referrals.
But you agree with them when they reject 68%.
I now see your thought process.
The FOS has a consumer bias as seen in the PPI reclaim industry giving so many people payouts when the cases were so dubious as well as the fact, as I said above, they never accept any fraud could be committed even though they are rejecting 68% of complaints of wrongdoing. You need to learn to separate 2 different points.
Look at the link below on FOS decisions
Case 118/5 - a couple claimed they had been told their mortgage application would be declined if they didn't take out MPPI. The bank advised they were given a fair choice on taking out the cover and rejected it. The couple referred it to the FOS. The FOS looked at the case and paperwork. The paperwork clearly stated MPPI was NOT required for the mortgage, moreover, the form made it clear MPPI was an option which the couple had signed repeatedly to say they wanted. Were they mistaken or try it on cases? The FOS said "we thought it was unlikely, based on the evidence, that they had been misled." (remember they claimed they were misled)
Case 118/11 - man was offered compensation amounting to the difference between a single premium policy (which he had) and a regular monthly policy (which the bank accepted he should have had). Man rejected it on the basis that he hadn't wanted PPI at all and he also said if he had the choice he wouldn't have taken out PPI so should have it all back. The FOS interviewed the man who claimed the policies were added without his knowledge. On looking at the paperwork he had twice signed in a box that was clearly optional to say he wanted PPI (there was a No box below). The FOS ruled "Having already assessed that Mr G had, more likely than not, agreed to take out PPI, we thought that he would have been likely to take out a second PPI policy." - mistaken or try it on (remember he claimed it was added without his knowledge)?
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/118/118-payment-protection.htmlSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
The FOS has a consumer bias as seen in the PPI reclaim industry giving so many people payouts when the cases were so dubious as well as the fact, as I said above, they never accept any fraud could be committed even though they are rejecting 68% of complaints of wrongdoing. You need to learn to separate 2 different points.
Look at the link below on FOS decisions
Case 118/5 - a couple claimed they had been told their mortgage application would be declined if they didn't take out MPPI. The bank advised they were given a fair choice on taking out the cover and rejected it. The couple referred it to the FOS. The FOS looked at the case and paperwork. The paperwork clearly stated MPPI was NOT required for the mortgage, moreover, the form made it clear MPPI was an option which the couple had signed repeatedly to say they wanted. Were they mistaken or try it on cases? The FOS said "we thought it was unlikely, based on the evidence, that they had been misled." (remember they claimed they were misled)
Case 118/11 - man was offered compensation amounting to the difference between a single premium policy (which he had) and a regular monthly policy (which the bank accepted he should have had). Man rejected it on the basis that he hadn't wanted PPI at all and he also said if he had the choice he wouldn't have taken out PPI so should have it all back. The FOS interviewed the man who claimed the policies were added without his knowledge. On looking at the paperwork he had twice signed in a box that was clearly optional to say he wanted PPI (there was a No box below). The FOS ruled "Having already assessed that Mr G had, more likely than not, agreed to take out PPI, we thought that he would have been likely to take out a second PPI policy." - mistaken or try it on (remember he claimed it was added without his knowledge)?
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/118/118-payment-protection.html
Glad you found the link I gave you useful
0 -
The FOS have published issue 131 which includes Q3 stats on complaints.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/131/issue131.pdf
Payment protection upholds remain high at 70%. However, packaged bank accounts are really low at just 13%. Not the 32% uphold rate that was mentioned in post #1. Plus, the amount of complaints about packaged accounts was only up slightly from previous quarter.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Customers seem to be frequently "mistaken" when sending in their complaints, examples include claiming that PPI was added without their knowledge and they never knew they had it until checking their paperwork, despite the fact they had made a year long sickness claim previously, or claiming that they were never given any policy documents for a non PPI policy despite not only being able to provide the technical names for the allegedly non received documents but having already sent in photocopies of the policy documents when they complained about the same policy some 6 months previously (they had originally complained using PPI complaint reasons when the actual policy they had bought had no relation to PPI).:)0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards