Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Former MSE Helen
    • By Former MSE Helen 3rd Jun 11, 9:16 AM
    • 2,324Posts
    • 971Thanks
    Former MSE Helen
    MSE News: Guest Comment: PPI was mis-sold but isn't bad
    • #1
    • 3rd Jun 11, 9:16 AM
    MSE News: Guest Comment: PPI was mis-sold but isn't bad 3rd Jun 11 at 9:16 AM
    This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:

    "The dodgy selling of PPI is well-known but Shane Craig, from Paymentcare, says the product shouldn't be demonised ..."

Page 1
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 3rd Jun 11, 2:33 PM
    • 11,225 Posts
    • 15,118 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #2
    • 3rd Jun 11, 2:33 PM
    • #2
    • 3rd Jun 11, 2:33 PM
    PPI's should be demonised until the major banks wake themselves up, far too much water under the bridge now for anyone to trust banks again when it comes to insurance. Even though they say they have put a lot of money aside, do you really believe they intend paying everyone back ?
    We then enter stage 2 of the "fob off" letters and the saga continues.
    Anyone looking at a PPI from a bank should request a confirmation letter of their cover in detail and in laymans language, not small print which is often misleading.
    I would never trust a bank selling me insurance ever again, and guess that is applicable to most
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • marshallka
    • By marshallka 3rd Jun 11, 2:52 PM
    • 14,494 Posts
    • 20,661 Thanks
    marshallka
    • #3
    • 3rd Jun 11, 2:52 PM
    • #3
    • 3rd Jun 11, 2:52 PM
    Even though they say they have put a lot of money aside, do you really believe they intend paying everyone back ?
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    Anything left over will be next years bonus!
    • magpiecottage
    • By magpiecottage 3rd Jun 11, 3:21 PM
    • 9,114 Posts
    • 5,584 Thanks
    magpiecottage
    • #4
    • 3rd Jun 11, 3:21 PM
    • #4
    • 3rd Jun 11, 3:21 PM
    PPI's should be demonised until the major banks wake themselves up
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    Utter nonsense. By that argument nobody should ever buy anything, no matter how beneficial it might be, if somebody else had misused it in the past.

    Even though they say they have put a lot of money aside, do you really believe they intend paying everyone back ?
    Only those who were missold.

    Anyone looking at a PPI from a bank should request a confirmation letter of their cover in detail and in laymans language, not small print which is often misleading.
    Good idea.

    We could call it a "Key Facts" document and require it to set out the product in a way that is clear, fair and not misleading. Anybody who received one would be able to make an informed decision about what they were being offered and whether to buy it. There would then be no grounds to complain that they had been missold to.

    I would never trust a bank selling me insurance ever again
    I would not normally buy from a bank because I can get a cheaper and/or better product elsewhere. I don't need my industry qualifications to do that, though - just the ability to read and know which of any two numbers is the larger, coupled with some common sense.
    Last edited by magpiecottage; 03-06-2011 at 7:36 PM.
    • marshallka
    • By marshallka 3rd Jun 11, 3:55 PM
    • 14,494 Posts
    • 20,661 Thanks
    marshallka
    • #5
    • 3rd Jun 11, 3:55 PM
    • #5
    • 3rd Jun 11, 3:55 PM
    Utter nonsense. By that argument nobody should ever buy anything, no matter how beneficial it might be, if somebody else had misused it inthe past.



    Only those who were missold.



    Good idea.

    We could call it a "Key Facts" document and require it to set out the product in a way that is clear, fair and not misleading. Anybody who received one would be able to make an informed decision about what they were being offered and whether to buy it. There would then be no grounds to complain that they had been missold to.



    I would not normally buy from a bank because I can get a cheaper and/or better product elsewhere. I don't need my industry qualifications to do that, though - just the ability to read and know which of any two numbers is the larger, coupled with some common sense.
    Originally posted by magpiecottage
    Where you state "only those missold". The banks are making things really difficult for genuine complainants now from even making a complaint. There was never any problems before the JR of people obtaining data but suddenly when it suits there is. This is just to hinder people and its not even giving them a chance. Its not right, its not proper and its certainly not fair.

    Yes insurance can be good. I have pet insurance and its been a godsend to us this year with our dog who developed diabetes and the claims have been very straight forward. Its the way that it was bundled into loans that is not good as only about 20% of claims actually paid out anyway. Does that not say something? If you think how much the banks made in the 80's with selling insurance like this and most likley missold just the same as today (even the FSA say that in their 10/12 policy statement when they mention pre 2005 sales) then they are getting away lightly. Very lightly. I wish someone would give me a few million just to get me started. They will never have to repay that.

    Where you say about not buying from a bank because you could get it cheaper elsewhere some had no choice as it was conditional to their loans.............or so they said.
  • pompeyfaith
    • #6
    • 3rd Jun 11, 4:11 PM
    • #6
    • 3rd Jun 11, 4:11 PM
    Personally I think an income protection policy is better value than an individual PPI policy as it will cover you whole income and not just 1 loan.
    • robbedofmymoney
    • By robbedofmymoney 3rd Jun 11, 5:42 PM
    • 877 Posts
    • 1,578 Thanks
    robbedofmymoney
    • #7
    • 3rd Jun 11, 5:42 PM
    • #7
    • 3rd Jun 11, 5:42 PM
    Personally I think an income protection policy is better value than an individual PPI policy as it will cover you whole income and not just 1 loan.
    Originally posted by pompeyfaith
    definately the way to go if you want cover.
    I'm proud to say that the banks no longer take money from me after becoming debt free
    • marshallka
    • By marshallka 3rd Jun 11, 6:59 PM
    • 14,494 Posts
    • 20,661 Thanks
    marshallka
    • #8
    • 3rd Jun 11, 6:59 PM
    • #8
    • 3rd Jun 11, 6:59 PM
    agreed here too. Income protection and preferably permanent health insurance. Although it is more expensive than regular income protections and you have to use an IFA I think, its paid for as long as you are ill and not for just 12 months. Critical Ilness is another good one but just be careful that you actually do disclose EVERY time you go to the docs even for undiagnosed conditions. They have been known to put a critical illness down to something you had years previous (which you would not have coupled to your critical illness yourself). And of course Life insurance.
    • magpiecottage
    • By magpiecottage 3rd Jun 11, 7:36 PM
    • 9,114 Posts
    • 5,584 Thanks
    magpiecottage
    • #9
    • 3rd Jun 11, 7:36 PM
    • #9
    • 3rd Jun 11, 7:36 PM
    Where you state "only those missold". The banks are making things really difficult for genuine complainants now from even making a complaint. There was never any problems before the JR of people obtaining data but suddenly when it suits there is. This is just to hinder people and its not even giving them a chance. Its not right, its not proper and its certainly not fair.
    Originally posted by marshallka
    If you are correct then it is unfair but I have seen no evidence personally and I think it unlikely that you have evidence that it is widespread.

    However, if anybody is having problems you can hand a letter of complaint into ANY branch. Just put in the letter "This letter is being delivered to your XXX branch by hand on DD/MM/YY and the eight weeks the Financial Services Authority allows you to investigate and issue a response to me begins on that date."

    Alternatively, you can search for their address here.

    If you use snail mail get proof of posting (free from the Post Office) as FOS will then deem it to have been delivered two working days later if they do not respond.

    You can also e-mail it if you have an e-mail address but fax, in my opinion, is best because you get a receipt showing when it was received. If you computer has a fax modem and you are able to get a fax number, that is the way to go.
  • Berryhillrunner
    Nothing for nothing
    Poor PPI practice is bad however consider the following...

    No bank dividend since the hysteria around PPI miss selling was exposed - it's not just PPI that's caused this but £billions put aside as provisions to pay claims hasn't helped.

    Alliance and Leicester headlined personal loan rates at 4.9% APR in 2008. BOE rate is now the lowest ever but personal loan rates are much higher - no insurance income to lenders means banks earn less so interest rates go up i.e. you pay more for a £5000 loan etc.

    Insurance regulation in place since 2005 but FSA, FOS and OFT are all points scoring off each other and are not joined up costing more £millions in mis-management - FOS & OFT are funded by government meaning more tax.

    Look outside the tabloid hysteria that's fueling a money grabbing 'ambulance chasing' culture and understand that there's nothing for nothing - move on Britain!
    • Alpine Star
    • By Alpine Star 8th Jun 11, 7:36 AM
    • 1,259 Posts
    • 611 Thanks
    Alpine Star

    Insurance regulation in place since 2005 but FSA, FOS and OFT are all points scoring off each other and are not joined up costing more £millions in mis-management - FOS & OFT are funded by government meaning more tax.
    Originally posted by Berryhillrunner
    The FOS is funded entirely by the financial services industry - meaning zero tax.
    • ~Brock~
    • By ~Brock~ 8th Jun 11, 9:14 AM
    • 1,600 Posts
    • 1,519 Thanks
    ~Brock~
    The FOS is funded entirely by the financial services industry - meaning zero tax.
    Originally posted by Alpine Star
    The cost of FOS complaints pops back up somewhere dont you worry......be it product pricing, charges etc
    • magpiecottage
    • By magpiecottage 8th Jun 11, 11:56 AM
    • 9,114 Posts
    • 5,584 Thanks
    magpiecottage
    The cost of FOS complaints pops back up somewhere dont you worry......be it product pricing, charges etc
    Originally posted by ~Brock~
    Absolutely! All this protection which society demands (or the FSA says we demand) comes at a price - and those costs include paying for the FSA and FOS to have plush offices in Canary Wharf, one of the most expensive places in the world.

    Do not fool yourself into thinking it is free.
  • src007
    Alliance and Leicester headlined personal loan rates at 4.9% APR in 2008. BOE rate is now the lowest ever but personal loan rates are much higher - no insurance income to lenders means banks earn less so interest rates go up i.e. you pay more for a £5000 loan etc.
    Originally posted by Berryhillrunner
    Is this such a bad thing? Knowing what you're paying for from the outset? Why should loans be subsidised by insurance? Isn't it better that someone can compare loan rates at the real cost, rather than being mis-led into buying a 'cheap loan' which is actually much more expensive because of the insurance.
    there's nothing for nothing - move on Britain!
    Originally posted by Berryhillrunner
    If you were paying £100 per month to ''insure'' payments of £190 per month, with another five years of payments yet to be made, would you simply say ''never mind, move on''.

    Also, I agree that the media hysteria is doing no one any good. Another fallout from the BBA starting a stupid legal challenge to block fair complaint handling. A further erosion of trust causing many additional complaints for businesses that have done nothing wrong.

    There're many people working in finance that offer a brilliant service. The banks are crooks and have alot to answer for.
  • The Loan Ranger
    Where you state "only those missold". The banks are making things really difficult for genuine complainants now from even making a complaint. There was never any problems before the JR of people obtaining data but suddenly when it suits there is. This is just to hinder people and its not even giving them a chance. Its not right, its not proper and its certainly not fair.

    Yes insurance can be good. I have pet insurance and its been a godsend to us this year with our dog who developed diabetes and the claims have been very straight forward. Its the way that it was bundled into loans that is not good as only about 20% of claims actually paid out anyway. Does that not say something? If you think how much the banks made in the 80's with selling insurance like this and most likley missold just the same as today (even the FSA say that in their 10/12 policy statement when they mention pre 2005 sales) then they are getting away lightly. Very lightly. I wish someone would give me a few million just to get me started. They will never have to repay that.

    Where you say about not buying from a bank because you could get it cheaper elsewhere some had no choice as it was conditional to their loans.............or so they said.
    Originally posted by marshallka
    Nice generalisation; what about banks and finance providers who offered genuine PPI's that wer not 'bundled into loans'? Ask the FOS what they think about the hysteria generated by the media drumming up stories with half-baked info. insinuating how all PPI's are 'bad' AND ASK CUSTOMERS WHO WERE GENUINELY MIS-SOLD WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT HAVING TO WAIT 6, 9, 12 months for FOS to get round to allocating their cases due to this appalingly bad info and advice being spouted out by people who don't have a clue which has resulted in every maggot on the planet coming out of the woodwork to make spourios and totally unfounded claims
    • marshallka
    • By marshallka 8th Jun 11, 8:16 PM
    • 14,494 Posts
    • 20,661 Thanks
    marshallka
    Nice generalisation; what about banks and finance providers who offered genuine PPI's that wer not 'bundled into loans'? Ask the FOS what they think about the hysteria generated by the media drumming up stories with half-baked info. insinuating how all PPI's are 'bad' AND ASK CUSTOMERS WHO WERE GENUINELY MIS-SOLD WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT HAVING TO WAIT 6, 9, 12 months for FOS to get round to allocating their cases due to this appalingly bad info and advice being spouted out by people who don't have a clue which has resulted in every maggot on the planet coming out of the woodwork to make spourios and totally unfounded claims
    Originally posted by The Loan Ranger
    Its not my fault about the media and this site. Martin goes on about PPI and this is called the PPI reclaiming discussion. I do not decide who is missold and who is not and I also have no idea of these maggots on the planet coming out of the woodwork.

    If a firm has sold PPI correctly then they are not going to get complaints. I did not say that all insurance is bad did I and i did not generalise on all insurance.

    I agree with the advice on this forum. I had some "conflicting/bad" advice myself in the past but I do realise that posts on here can be from anyone. I can either listen to it or ignore it i guess. There are far worse sites than this one TBH. Just like yourself in your posts, anyone can make an opinion.
    • magpiecottage
    • By magpiecottage 8th Jun 11, 10:46 PM
    • 9,114 Posts
    • 5,584 Thanks
    magpiecottage
    If a firm has sold PPI correctly then they are not going to get complaints.
    Originally posted by marshallka
    If only that were true. Sadly, whilst there are crooked providers and advisers there are also crooked complainants and claims management companies.
    • Alpine Star
    • By Alpine Star 9th Jun 11, 6:09 AM
    • 1,259 Posts
    • 611 Thanks
    Alpine Star
    Nice generalisation; what about banks and finance providers who offered genuine PPI's that wer not 'bundled into loans'? Ask the FOS what they think about the hysteria generated by the media drumming up stories with half-baked info. insinuating how all PPI's are 'bad' AND ASK CUSTOMERS WHO WERE GENUINELY MIS-SOLD WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT HAVING TO WAIT 6, 9, 12 months for FOS to get round to allocating their cases due to this appalingly bad info and advice being spouted out by people who don't have a clue which has resulted in every maggot on the planet coming out of the woodwork to make spourios and totally unfounded claims
    Originally posted by The Loan Ranger
    I wonder what the FOS think about the ''hysteria'' demonstrated by references to ''magots'' coming out the woodwork, THE USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS TO OVER EMPHSISE A POINT and the inclusion of 'mad' icons displaying an inability to control one's temper?
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 9th Jun 11, 8:31 AM
    • 98,257 Posts
    • 66,478 Thanks
    dunstonh
    If a firm has sold PPI correctly then they are not going to get complaints.
    It doesn't work that way. I have mentioned before that my compliance company have said that around 30% of the complaints they are getting are from people that don't even have the product being complained about. So, that indicates a third of their complaints are from try-it-on/fraudulent consumers.

    In my time I have had three complaints. All three were fraudulent try-it-ons. One tried to make out I had sold a product and gave wrong advice. Yet the year it was taken out, I was still in school. Yet they had a perfect recollection of what I said to them. Another continued to pay a pension after they ceased to be eligible and tried to get their money back because I didnt tell them they had ceased to be eligible. They ceased to be eligible two years after I saw them and my documented records showed I had a copy of her payslip and my review notes confirmed I had checked eligibility and warned about future eligibility if a hypothetical career break was to take place. Those notes on an updated factfind were signed by her. I didnt even set up that pension or any other product and the person didnt employ me for advice (they didnt want to pay for it). It was just a one visit that led to nothing. Yet she wanted me to pay thousands because of the HMRC fine. The third one was more complicated but basically they created a whole new story of events. They had got into debt and were desperate for money so they saw a complaint as an easy way to make money. However, my audit trail blew it out of the water (plus what I had done was better than what they had before). That complaint used a third party claims company.

    It does affect good firms. That last one really hit me hard personally as it was a person that I would never believe could complain and had no reason to. There was frequent and good communication. Everything was doing what it was expected and known to do. The complaint came out of the blue and was effectively a demand for money. However, it just shows that when people get desperate, they will do things to hurt others if they can make money out of it.

    I think its important to be clear that where a consumer has been a victim of wrongdoing they should have everything put right. However, you cannot assume that consumers are angels and companies are bad. There are bad consumers just as there are bad companies. Large firms, like bank, just absorb the complaints and deal with them (often badly but its not personal). Small local firms get hit with complaints and they do affect the people personally. The costs are higher pro-rata for small firms.
    Last edited by dunstonh; 09-06-2011 at 8:34 AM.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • marshallka
    • By marshallka 9th Jun 11, 9:20 AM
    • 14,494 Posts
    • 20,661 Thanks
    marshallka
    It doesn't work that way. I have mentioned before that my compliance company have said that around 30% of the complaints they are getting are from people that don't even have the product being complained about. So, that indicates a third of their complaints are from try-it-on/fraudulent consumers.

    In my time I have had three complaints. All three were fraudulent try-it-ons. One tried to make out I had sold a product and gave wrong advice. Yet the year it was taken out, I was still in school. Yet they had a perfect recollection of what I said to them. Another continued to pay a pension after they ceased to be eligible and tried to get their money back because I didnt tell them they had ceased to be eligible. They ceased to be eligible two years after I saw them and my documented records showed I had a copy of her payslip and my review notes confirmed I had checked eligibility and warned about future eligibility if a hypothetical career break was to take place. Those notes on an updated factfind were signed by her. I didnt even set up that pension or any other product and the person didnt employ me for advice (they didnt want to pay for it). It was just a one visit that led to nothing. Yet she wanted me to pay thousands because of the HMRC fine. The third one was more complicated but basically they created a whole new story of events. They had got into debt and were desperate for money so they saw a complaint as an easy way to make money. However, my audit trail blew it out of the water (plus what I had done was better than what they had before). That complaint used a third party claims company.

    It does affect good firms. That last one really hit me hard personally as it was a person that I would never believe could complain and had no reason to. There was frequent and good communication. Everything was doing what it was expected and known to do. The complaint came out of the blue and was effectively a demand for money. However, it just shows that when people get desperate, they will do things to hurt others if they can make money out of it.

    I think its important to be clear that where a consumer has been a victim of wrongdoing they should have everything put right. However, you cannot assume that consumers are angels and companies are bad. There are bad consumers just as there are bad companies. Large firms, like bank, just absorb the complaints and deal with them (often badly but its not personal). Small local firms get hit with complaints and they do affect the people personally. The costs are higher pro-rata for small firms.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    So going by your comment above about the 30% not having PPI, the other 70% did and have a right to complain (everyone has that right) and if found to be missold then things should be put right. Surely the complaints data at FOS is proof that lots of people have been missold and it was proved by the Citizens Advice and OFT that the "paying out" claims ratio was low for single premium PPI. (if that is the correct terminolgy which I have noted you have to use just lately on here or you get thought of as a try it on!!!).

    I was not a one for "assuming" everyone was missold on this site but since my own personal experiences I found that maybe I was more like yourself and thinking that it was getting a case of "try it ons" BUT I should not have ever judged. I have no idea of peoples personal circumstances (neither does anyone on here) and have to admit I was quite "negative" at some time when people posted on here. (admittedly I was wrong to have been). I have had people being "quite negative" back though......

    You say you have only had 3 complaints and one was when you were at school (I honestly thought you were retired dunstonh lol) so you must be proud of what you have acheived and that you are not tarred with the same brush. Some complainants get tarred as a "try it on" on this site and that again is not fair.

    I do not agree with single premiums added to loans. I never had and never will do (Just my view). I DO think they were profit making firstly and foremost and not sold (most of the time) in the best interests of the consumer. I had no idea of how they worked and I am sure most of the people on here did not either unless you worked in finance. (even with closely reading terms and conditions!).

    Not everyone is bad dunstonh that comes onto here.

    Anyone can post on here and anyone can have what they want as their signature. In fact we have no idea if their signature is actually true (we would be fools to believe just because someone has "Doctor someone or other".. written below they were in fact a doctor).... we can only ask and find out for ourselves. No-one KNOWS everything dunstonh. We all learn as we go along. No-one has to listen to posts and advice from here. I have had bad advice from here in the past TBH but I should have known better shouldn't I.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,147Posts Today

8,440Users online

Martin's Twitter