Will PPI show on statement?

[Deleted User]

Martin Lewis is great at galvanising people who might otherwise do nothing about the mis-selling which was committed on them. That's to be applauded.
However, his tactics also entice people to make a complaint when they don't have one.

He really should not be viewed as some kind of guru, as some seem to on this site.

There were doubtless some dishonest banking staff who knowingly mis-sold PPI and other financial products, but it was the whole idea that loans and credit cards automatically needed expensive and largely useless insurance that caused the scandal. The Banks are paying for this rip-off culture to this day.

dunstonh

Mersey wrote: »

I said the mis-selling of PPI & packaged accounts.


Goggle is your friend, but, here is an MSE guide:


www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/reclaim-packaged-bank-accounts


You'll find "added by deceit" under 5.


and


"the banks have been found to have systematically mis-sold them." at Step 1.


But Martin Lewis also refers to fraud by bank staff and many mis-sales being due to staff being on commission in The Times, Express, Moneywise and on ITV's This Morning, as you seem in some doubt .

SO, its not PPI. Its Packaged bank accounts that he has said it.

Rather strange given that the uphold rate for packaged bank accounts is currently running at 13% at the FOS.

Bank staff were not usually on commissions. They had targets and were heavily pressured but few got commission.

Mersey_2

Nasqueron wrote: »

You know Martin Lewis isn't a financial advisor or an expert in these things right? He can say all he wants about PPI commission or bank staff deceit, doesn't mean it's true.

If your account was changed to a paid for account overnight by your bank, the next statement you get a charge, you ring the bank and ask why and either that staff member is going to be sacked and/or you'd have a complaint to the regulator - why would they risk their jobs for something they won't get any money for and that customers would spot almost immediately?

He is quite an expert in this field. Thankfully many do believe what he says is true rather than yourself.


It really is baffling that 4 posters on here seem to tell potential claimants all is pointless - the complete opposite of the raison d'tre for this site Martin Lewis launched.


Oh and you're incorrect again re all packaged accounts. Yes, that would have been the ideal scenario. But if banks had behaved then there wouldn't have been any mis-selling.


One of the errors was that eg NatWest didn't list the packaged account fee as such; but, merely listed it as a 'charge' the following month along with any overlimit 'charge.' [They are changing this in 2016, due to an FOS-BBA agreement]

[Deleted User]

Mersey's_signature wrote: »

remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer.

On the contrary, this is a discussion forum in which people can freely express their opinions. It was never set up primarily for the reasons you state at the foot of every post.

I think you may be getting mixed up with the CAG forum.

I therefore suggest you amend or remove this signature.

magpiecottage

Mersey wrote: »

He is quite an expert in this field. Thankfully many do believe what he says is true rather than yourself.

He is not infallible, though - as has been determined in court.

He has made useful contributions to the debate and there are no doubr those who have received redress they would not have otherwise received.

He is also quite correct that there is no need to use a CMC.

Mersey wrote: »

It really is baffling that 4 posters on here seem to tell potential claimants all is pointless - the complete opposite of the raison d'tre for this site Martin Lewis launched.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

On the contrary, this is a discussion forum in which people can freely express their opinions. It was never set up primarily for the reasons you state at the foot of every post.

I think the clue is in the name of the site.

Mersey wrote: »

As a lawyer I

ought, perhaps to be a little more careful to ensure the accuracy of your statements? For example, you say.

Mersey wrote: »

4 posters on here seem to tell potential claimants all is pointless

I have counted such posts on this thread so far.

I managed to do this on the fingers of one finger - and still have a finger left over.

Having said that, though, if a bank really had lied about the existence of PPI, I do not see how the policyholder would be able to prove they had been lied to without actually producing the evidence of the policy - in which case, there would seem to be no point in asking if it existed.

This is a bit like being asked when you stopped beating your wife - if you give a date you are admitting you beat her before then but if you do not then you are admitting you still do it.

Mersey_2

magpiecottage - 4 on here meant this site (not this thread) if that helps. I was not referring to yourself as 1 of the 4, in any event.


Moneyineptitude - many thanks for deleting your "Seeya!" posting from the packaged bank account thread, after I proved you were incorrect by providing the evidence. If I'd known you were merely trolling I wouldn't have wasted the time, proving you were incorrect by providing the NatWest response. I've noted it for future and won't waste time correcting you again.

magpiecottage

Mersey wrote: »

magpiecottage - 4 on here meant this site (not this thread) if that helps. I was not referring to yourself as 1 of the 4, in any event.

Okay

I do note that yours was a bespoke reply to a specific complaint.

Unfortunately, most banks are inundated with complaints about PPI and the norm is to use standard templates.

They clearly sold some pretty rubbish products but in suggesting conspiracy, I think you credit financial institutions with far more competence than they deserve.

You need to understand that, whilst they might think themselves to be businesses, they are really just pantomimes.

Nasqueron

Mersey wrote: »

Oh and you're incorrect again re all packaged accounts. Yes, that would have been the ideal scenario. But if banks had behaved then there wouldn't have been any mis-selling.


One of the errors was that eg NatWest didn't list the packaged account fee as such; but, merely listed it as a 'charge' the following month along with any overlimit 'charge.' [They are changing this in 2016, due to an FOS-BBA agreement]

Funny this conspiracy lark. So you're claiming banks deliberately changed people from free accounts to fee paying ones without telling customers in the hope that people wouldn't notice and complain and hope the regulator wouldn't spot it? Sounds about as legit as those FOS cases I posted before where people claimed they weren't told they were being charged PPI when they had chose to sign up to it

Mersey_2

C*ck up, rather than conspiracy. As magpiecottage says, they or the State (DWP) aren't usually credited with the competence for the former.


Dunstonh - it isn't disputed by the BBA that staff were given bonuses if they sold x number of these products. Such pressure is bound to result in bad practice from a small % of staff in all industries, whether it be double glazing salesmen in the '80s, or those rogue traders conning OAPs today. They're as bad as some Irish Travellers on BBC Watchdog. Just because someone wears a suit or sells over the 'phone, that doesn't make them any less dubious than someone door knocking and offering to fix gutters that don't need fixing.

dunstonh

Dunstonh - it isn't disputed by the BBA that staff were given bonuses if they sold x number of these products. Such pressure is bound to result in bad practice from a small % of staff in all industries, whether it be double glazing salesmen in the '80s, or those rogue traders conning OAPs today. They're as bad as some Irish Travellers on BBC Watchdog. Just because someone wears a suit or sells over the 'phone, that doesn't make them any less dubious than someone door knocking and offering to fix gutters that don't need fixing.

I am aware of many of the high street bank models and commission tended only to apply on the regulated product (and even then differently applied to how you saw it on the IFA side).

By far, the most common model for staff were bonuses paid on the branch achieving its targets. The staff pay levels were also affected by their annual report. That had a heavy bias toward sales targets being achieved. They did not get paid for individual policies sold.

Almost universally, the biggest issue for bank staff was the pressure put on them to sell. This would send staff home in tears at times and make their life a misery. It was not any relatively small payout that they got in bonuses once a year. Whilst the FCA has not banned commission on insurance products. It has banned targets and sales pressures. So, they acted on the worst areas.

The regulated side did tend to get paid in relation to their sales but they tended to be on pensions, investments and life assurance and not general insurance (household & MPPI) and most regulated individuals did not get involved with credit cards and lending).