MSE News: Legal challenge to PPI deadline launched

Insider101

Mchambers wrote: »

That is a consequence of the bank's incompetence. If they had not mis-sold, they would not be in this position. They deserve no sympathy.

The bank's should start to give automatic upholds for ALL mis-sold PPI; rather than waiting for a customer to complain before giving an uphold. A complaint is not needed. If PPI was mis-sold, the bank needs to be pro-active to give upholds for ALL customers,

I hope the FOS (or whatever they are called now) insist on this before they stop PPI complaints.

Where to start with this.

Firstly, an uphold is where a respondent (the bank) agrees that a complaint is justified. It is, by definition, not possible to have an uphold without a complaint. Secondly, as one who knows, most of the bigger banks have undertaken proactive remediation projects with regards to products which they can identify were missold.

For example if the customer was clearly ineligible due to age, or unemployed at the time of taking the credit (yes, I have seen it, surprisingly frequently). However, as DunstonH correctly points out, for most products, if a product is to be identified as missold then it would need the customer to contact the bank, tell them and explain why and how.

Mchambers

Insider101 wrote: »

.it would need the customer to contact the bank, tell them and explain why and how.

Not when the bank knows that it has deliberately mis-sold PPI to the customer and so there should be not need for the customer to complain and so contact the bank.

[Deleted User]

Mchambers wrote: »

Not when the bank knows that it has deliberately mis-sold PPI to the customer

They "know" this, do they?

Insider101

Mchambers wrote: »

Not when the bank knows that it has deliberately mis-sold PPI to the customer and so there should be not need for the customer to complain and so contact the bank.

I can only reiterate what I said in my last post.

Most banks have now undertaken proactive remediation projects aimed at compensating customers who they can identify from their records as having been missold to. For example, those who bank records confirm were not eligible for the cover. However, this is only a small minority of cases.

If the customer does not fall into one of those categories then nobody at the bank does know that the policy has been missold to the customer. Therefore, if the customer feels that way then it would necessitate them contacting the bank and complaining. Pretty much all of the banks have also carried out proactive mailings to customers who bought PPI advising them of the issues and of how to complain if they feel they were affected. There is only so much they can do.

For me, the phrase "you can lead a horse to water" comes to mind. My view is that in between the millions of cold calls, newspaper and TV adverts and with the banks proactively writing to people. The whole thing will have been going on for over a decade by the time the deadline falls. If a two year advertising campaign and the deluge of associated CMC activity doesn't prompt people to complaint then in all likelihood they are never going to. Banks are being inhibited from lending, expanding and creating jobs by the prolonged uncertainty and necessity to set aside estimated provisions for historic redress bills. Uncertainty harms the economy. My personal view, the whole thing has dragged on for long enough and it's time to draw a line under it.