Packaged bank accounts among most complained about financial products - but only 4% are upheld

MSE_Emily

Packaged bank accounts were among the most complained about financial product between October and December last year, according to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) - but only 4% of complaints were actually upheld...

Read the full story:

Packaged bank accounts among most complained about financial products - but only 4% are upheld

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

[Deleted User]

Not surprising, sites like this have encouraged the population to jump on the bandwagon of claiming they were miss-sold stuff (some might even say they were telling porkies) but the difference between claiming you were miss-sold and proving it can be vast. Many people, in reality, really wanted the account or were sold it correctly, thus their complaints are an easy rejection and banks can support that with evidence when the customer chances their arm at the FOS. Even so banks have tightened up processes, covering everything, so nobody can claim they weren't, at the very least, given the chance to see what they were agreeing to. Many complaints are time barred too.

Ultimately, a low uphold rate is a good thing - it shows the banks are being responsible.

eskbanker

Entirely agree with the above - MSE undoubtedly steers people towards claiming, with pitifully inadequate warnings about timebarring for example.  The FCA rules specifically allow institutions to reject claims raised six years after alleged misselling or three years after being aware of it (e.g. by closing an account), but the MSE article makes no mention of these clear rules and simply offers a vague reference to statute of limitation:

Important: There is no time limit on how far back you can claim, but in England and Wales the statute of limitation is six years, while in Scotland it is five years. The further back you go, the harder it is to complain but it is possible. So even if something was sold more than 20 years ago, if the firm was regulated at the time and you didn't become aware of a problem until recently, you can make (and win) a complaint.

Sandtree

MSE_Emily said:

Packaged bank accounts were among the most complained about financial product between October and December last year, according to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) - but only 4% of complaints were actually upheld...

Read the full story:

Packaged bank accounts among most complained about financial products - but only 4% are upheld

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

Hopefully your proud of that accomplishment? 

born_again

Clearly false claims.
Maybe thinking as they did not travel oversea's that they were mis sold.

Reminds me of the people submitting PPI mis sold claims. When they had actually had a payout on a PPI claim.

[Deleted User]

eskbanker said:

Entirely agree with the above - MSE undoubtedly steers people towards claiming, with pitifully inadequate warnings about timebarring for example.  The FCA rules specifically allow institutions to reject claims raised six years after alleged misselling or three years after being aware of it (e.g. by closing an account), but the MSE article makes no mention of these clear rules and simply offers a vague reference to statute of limitation:

Important: There is no time limit on how far back you can claim, but in England and Wales the statute of limitation is six years, while in Scotland it is five years. The further back you go, the harder it is to complain but it is possible. So even if something was sold more than 20 years ago, if the firm was regulated at the time and you didn't become aware of a problem until recently, you can make (and win) a complaint.

The three year rule is actually more vague than that - it's 3 years from knowing you had a reason to complain or 3 years from when you could reasonably have known you did - as you say by closing the account, banks sending out customer contact letters, annual statements of cost/benefit etc.

It's just another grift like PPI but fortunately the banks were wise to it so savvy customers aren't losing out with banks being forced to waste billions paying out for chancers which the majority clearly are, hence the 96% uphold rate (I doubt all of them were time barred either)

eskbanker

Deleted_User said:

eskbanker said:

Entirely agree with the above - MSE undoubtedly steers people towards claiming, with pitifully inadequate warnings about timebarring for example.  The FCA rules specifically allow institutions to reject claims raised six years after alleged misselling or three years after being aware of it (e.g. by closing an account), but the MSE article makes no mention of these clear rules and simply offers a vague reference to statute of limitation:

Important: There is no time limit on how far back you can claim, but in England and Wales the statute of limitation is six years, while in Scotland it is five years. The further back you go, the harder it is to complain but it is possible. So even if something was sold more than 20 years ago, if the firm was regulated at the time and you didn't become aware of a problem until recently, you can make (and win) a complaint.

The three year rule is actually more vague than that - it's 3 years from knowing you had a reason to complain or 3 years from when you could reasonably have known you did - as you say by closing the account, banks sending out customer contact letters, annual statements of cost/benefit etc.

I'd argue that the FCA position is well enough defined for MSE to incorporate it into its article, rather than the generic statute of limitations stuff:

[Complaints can be rejected on timebarring grounds if raised] more than:

(a) six years after the event complained of; or (if later)

(b) three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint

The 'ought reasonably to have become aware' is arguably vague but it wouldn't be difficult for MSE to include an explanatory clarification such as yours - there will be plenty of FOS case studies expressing similar sentiments!

Thrugelmir

Perhaps MSE needs to return to it's roots and educate. Rather than generate click bait to enhance the amount of advertising revenue generated and bottom line profit for it's owners. A case of poacher turned gamekeeper.

[Deleted User]

eskbanker said:

Deleted_User said:

eskbanker said:

Entirely agree with the above - MSE undoubtedly steers people towards claiming, with pitifully inadequate warnings about timebarring for example.  The FCA rules specifically allow institutions to reject claims raised six years after alleged misselling or three years after being aware of it (e.g. by closing an account), but the MSE article makes no mention of these clear rules and simply offers a vague reference to statute of limitation:

Important: There is no time limit on how far back you can claim, but in England and Wales the statute of limitation is six years, while in Scotland it is five years. The further back you go, the harder it is to complain but it is possible. So even if something was sold more than 20 years ago, if the firm was regulated at the time and you didn't become aware of a problem until recently, you can make (and win) a complaint.

The three year rule is actually more vague than that - it's 3 years from knowing you had a reason to complain or 3 years from when you could reasonably have known you did - as you say by closing the account, banks sending out customer contact letters, annual statements of cost/benefit etc.

I'd argue that the FCA position is well enough defined for MSE to incorporate it into its article, rather than the generic statute of limitations stuff:

[Complaints can be rejected on timebarring grounds if raised] more than:

(a) six years after the event complained of; or (if later)

(b) three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint

The 'ought reasonably to have become aware' is arguably vague but it wouldn't be difficult for MSE to include an explanatory clarification such as yours - there will be plenty of FOS case studies expressing similar sentiments!

What I was meaning was that I agree with you, but absolutely they should make it clear that the 3 year rule can be triggered - but MSE wants to be helpful, so will not do anything to put people off "claiming" (and that's a whole different argument as it suggests you're entitled to a refund, rather than complaining you were miss-sold)!

Sandtree

Thrugelmir said:

Perhaps MSE needs to return to it's roots and educate. Rather than generate click bait to enhance the amount of advertising revenue generated and bottom line profit for it's owners. A case of poacher turned gamekeeper.

Is that where it started? Certainly it came to my knowledge via promoting the PPI miss-selling claims and promoting alternative PPI products... seems to have been searching for the next headline news ever since

born_again

Thrugelmir said:

Perhaps MSE needs to return to it's roots and educate. Rather than generate click bait to enhance the amount of advertising revenue generated and bottom line profit for it's owners. A case of poacher turned gamekeeper.

Is there any media outlet that does not work on the "Click Bait" principle?