MSE News: Arnold Schwarzenegger returns in new PPI reclaim ad 4 April 2018 at 10:05AM in Reclaim PPI & other insurance 8 replies 2.2K views

Former_MSE_Callum

Arnold Schwarzenegger's animatronic head is hitting TV screens again today - in a new advert urging people to check whether they had PPI...

Read the full story:
'Arnold Schwarzenegger returns in new PPI reclaim ad'

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.

Paul_DNAP

If they are actually concerned about how many people who had loans who have not checked, then why didn't they make it the bank's duty to contact previous customers to push out the refund rather than make it the duty of people who have been cheated to go and find the people who cheated them and doff their cap like Oliver Twist and say "please sir, can I have some of that money you robbed off me".

[Deleted User]

Paul_DNAP wrote: »

why didn't they make it the bank's duty to contact previous customers to push out the refund

Not all PPI was mis-sold.

Certainly a very large proportion was, but not enough to justify automatic refunds for everyone who was sold the insurance.

No one making a complaint has to "doff his cap", in fact many complaints are pretty blunt. I know mine was.:)

Mchambers

The original advert was a load of clap. Just hope the new one is better.

There should be a lot more automatic upholds but the trouble is the banks are inherently dishonest.

dunstonh

Paul_DNAP wrote: »

If they are actually concerned about how many people who had loans who have not checked, then why didn't they make it the bank's duty to contact previous customers to push out the refund rather than make it the duty of people who have been cheated to go and find the people who cheated them and doff their cap like Oliver Twist and say "please sir, can I have some of that money you robbed off me".

1 - Not all PPI was missold.
2 - Not all PPI was put in place by banks.
3 - There is nothing wrong with having PPI.

Your approach would be to punish the innocent firms/sellers.

There should be a lot more automatic upholds but the trouble is the banks are inherently dishonest.

Over half of PPI complaints are from people that dont have PPI. Yet they make all sorts of allegations. Consumers are equally dishonest. And banks have been paying out automatically on many cases for years.

Paul_DNAP

Okay, I take that point, I wasn't meaning an automatic refund of all PPI payment, but I do feel it should have been the financial institutions duty to have to do a review of every PPI customer they have had and to carry out an initial review and then attempt to contact that customer to inform them they had a PPI product and a pre-printed claim for and a pre-paid return envelope if they feel this was mis-sold to them.


Obviously, this would be difficult to do for data protection reasons and also if the customer is no longer at the address they have on file for older products, but unless the customer has completely evaporated then tracing them should be possible with a bit of effort.

Paul_DNAP

Mchambers wrote: »

The original advert was a load of clap. Just hope the new one is better.

Alas, your hopes are not met. The new ones are worse, and look like the cheapest advert from the tackiest ambulance chasers out there, and don't come across as being something serious form the government. I would trust the Gladstone-brooks guy more, which is none at all.

[Deleted User]

Paul_DNAP wrote: »

I do feel it should have been the financial institutions duty to have to do a review of every PPI customer they have had and to carry out an initial review and then attempt to contact that customer to inform them they had a PPI product and a pre-printed claim for and a pre-paid return envelope if they feel this was mis-sold to them.

By the time the PPI debacle draws to a close, it will have cost financial institutions literally £billions. Are you seriously suggesting that EVERY sale of PPI should have been the subject of a "review"? Many people bought PPI and were quite content with their purchase, why should they receive a "claim" form in the post and so be encouraged to complain regardless?

Just to reiterate, not every PPI policy was mis-sold.

It's not even a majority of PPI that was mis-sold.

The regulator decided that the fairest way to deal with the significant minority which were mis-sold was to streamline the complaint process and publicise the fact that a refund plus interest was available to those mis-sold.

The only truly unfortunate thing was that this method allowed Claims Management Companies to spring up and take huge swathes of customer redress by doing virtually nothing that could not be done alone and for free.

dunstonh

No-one disagrees that the banks went to town on this. However, the rules put in place on complaining about PPI seriously disadvantaged the banks. Some even considered that it was a way to punish them. This has led to significant numbers of people putting in false complaints and getting paid out.

The last "forced" review, where the firms had to be proactive across the board was the pension review covering all pensions sold between 1988 and 1994. The person that set up that review later said that it resulted in too many people getting paid redress who did not deserve it. it created significant costs to firms that did no wrong and caused some to close down despite doing no wrong. And that was before todays compensation culture.

I haven't suffered any PPI complaints but that is largely down to me being mostly investments. I did have someone enquire if I had sold PPI to them. I hadn't. However, had I done so, it would have been a genuine sale (I am personally liable for the advice I give. So, its my pocket that it hits if I do wrong). Despite that, I know that person with their tone would have put in a complaint regardless.

I had a mortgage broker visit me one morning. A young guy not long started out. He was in tears because someone put a complaint in about missold PPI. He hadnt sold any and the complaint was rejected with no PPI sold but they still took it to the FOS and he suffered a £500 fee because of that. He was on a low income being new and that really hit him hard in the pocket and it completely changed his whole outlook. He couldnt do any business for weeks because his confidence had been shattered. The banks may be faceless but small firms are not.

No solution is going to be perfect and there are those that try it on on both sides. The whole PPI affair is messy with neither consumers, banks or the regulator coming out of it smelling of roses. (include the regulator as they knew, as did everyone, that the banks had been selling it that way for over 20 years and did nothing).