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 26th Mar 12, 11:45 AM
    • 2,324Posts
    • 971Thanks
    Former MSE Helen
    MSE News: Ombudsman recruits extra staff to beat PPI logjam
    • #1
    • 26th Mar 12, 11:45 AM
    MSE News: Ombudsman recruits extra staff to beat PPI logjam 26th Mar 12 at 11:45 AM
    This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:

    "The Financial Ombudsman Service has moved to tackle the huge delays for consumers who reclaim mis-sold PPI..."

Page 1
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 26th Mar 12, 11:53 AM
    • 23,613 Posts
    • 12,943 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    • #2
    • 26th Mar 12, 11:53 AM
    • #2
    • 26th Mar 12, 11:53 AM
    If it speeds the process for those waiting months (and months) then this can only be a good thing.
  • Premier
    • #3
    • 26th Mar 12, 12:35 PM
    • #3
    • 26th Mar 12, 12:35 PM
    Where/how does someone apply for one of these positions?
    • magpiecottage
    • By magpiecottage 26th Mar 12, 12:38 PM
    • 9,114 Posts
    • 5,584 Thanks
    magpiecottage
    • #4
    • 26th Mar 12, 12:38 PM
    • #4
    • 26th Mar 12, 12:38 PM
    Where/how does someone apply for one of these positions?
    Originally posted by Premier
    Write and ask?

    Be warned, though, friends of mine who have been there have hated it.
    • roonaldo
    • By roonaldo 26th Mar 12, 3:13 PM
    • 3,361 Posts
    • 1,597 Thanks
    roonaldo
    • #5
    • 26th Mar 12, 3:13 PM
    • #5
    • 26th Mar 12, 3:13 PM
    Ive been there, its good but its tough. They are mostly all contractors (like myself) who deal with adjudicating on PPI. I hear its better now, now Deloitte are not managing it.

    Ranstad Financial resource for the position (www.ranstad.co.uk). Its 205 per day if you have experience.
    Last edited by roonaldo; 26-03-2012 at 3:16 PM.
    • Pincher
    • By Pincher 26th Mar 12, 3:26 PM
    • 6,516 Posts
    • 2,491 Thanks
    Pincher
    • #6
    • 26th Mar 12, 3:26 PM
    • #6
    • 26th Mar 12, 3:26 PM
    Marvellous, agency gets 200 a day, contractor gets 205?

    We'll be lucky if the tax payer manages to get 405 worth of payout for every 405 spent.
    • roonaldo
    • By roonaldo 26th Mar 12, 3:36 PM
    • 3,361 Posts
    • 1,597 Thanks
    roonaldo
    • #7
    • 26th Mar 12, 3:36 PM
    • #7
    • 26th Mar 12, 3:36 PM
    Sorry I dont understand what you mean, FOS is funded by the banks/FS firms and FOS dont make payouts. Its currently a 500 referal fee to firm, going up soon to 850 for PPI complaints referred.
    Last edited by roonaldo; 26-03-2012 at 3:39 PM.
    • ~Brock~
    • By ~Brock~ 26th Mar 12, 3:43 PM
    • 1,600 Posts
    • 1,519 Thanks
    ~Brock~
    • #8
    • 26th Mar 12, 3:43 PM
    • #8
    • 26th Mar 12, 3:43 PM
    Are we really naiive enough to think that all these 500/850's wont come back to haunt consumers in future product pricing?
    • roonaldo
    • By roonaldo 26th Mar 12, 3:46 PM
    • 3,361 Posts
    • 1,597 Thanks
    roonaldo
    • #9
    • 26th Mar 12, 3:46 PM
    • #9
    • 26th Mar 12, 3:46 PM
    Are we really naiive enough to think that all these 500/850's wont come back to haunt consumers in future product pricing?
    Originally posted by ~Brock~
    you are spot on, also the 3.2 billion that the Lloyds group are spending on PPI.

    The customer will pay for it in the end!
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 26th Mar 12, 3:53 PM
    • 23,613 Posts
    • 12,943 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    The customer will pay for it in the end!
    Originally posted by roonaldo
    Just like millions of them paid for expensive, often useless, PPI policies?
    The big Banks have more than enough resources to absorb these costs. I doubt we'll see any big price hikes in their goods and services for example, as customers will just shop elsewhere.
    • Pincher
    • By Pincher 26th Mar 12, 3:53 PM
    • 6,516 Posts
    • 2,491 Thanks
    Pincher
    Sorry I dont understand what you mean, FOS is funded by the banks/FS firms and FOS dont make payouts. Its currently a 500 referal fee to firm, going up soon to 850 for PPI complaints referred.
    Originally posted by roonaldo

    I assumed FSA (if it's still called that) and FOS are government funded, otherwise it's rather incestuous. If the banks are really paying for the FOS, they need to fine the bad banks, on top of the payouts, so the good banks don't pay for the extra admin, which just end up getting paid for by the bank customers.

    Contractors hired through agencies give a cut to the agency, Temps can easily get less than the agency per day.

    Permanet staff hired through agencies has a fee of three to six months salary paid by the employer.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 26th Mar 12, 3:59 PM
    • 23,613 Posts
    • 12,943 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    If the banks are really paying for the FOS, they need to fine the bad banks, on top of the payouts, so the good banks don't pay for the extra admin, which just end up getting paid for by the bank customers.
    Originally posted by Pincher
    They do "fine" the banks and IFAs in the form of a 500 fee for every referred case (win or lose). However, it's the job of the Regulator to actually fine businesses which break the rules governing them.
    It is independent of the Banks, but was set up by Parliament as self-funding;


    http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/index.html
    Last edited by Moneyineptitude; 26-03-2012 at 4:02 PM.
    • ~Brock~
    • By ~Brock~ 26th Mar 12, 7:30 PM
    • 1,600 Posts
    • 1,519 Thanks
    ~Brock~
    They do "fine" the banks and IFAs in the form of a 500 fee for every referred case (win or lose).
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    Which is exactly why it should not be viewed as 'acceptable' to put in a complaint just for the hell of it just to try and grab some cash where no valid reason exists.

    Nobody likes the banks so they are seen as fair game (which still doesnt make it right), but this type of action can put smaller firms and individuals out of business through no fault of their own.

    Also, I don't think the win-or-lose-you-pay funding model was really designed with the activities of claims companies in mind because most of these merchants have the morals of alley cats and are happy to bang in claims left right and centre with no comeback on themselves for just how speculative they are and how much time and money they waste.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 26th Mar 12, 7:41 PM
    • 23,613 Posts
    • 12,943 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    I don't think the win-or-lose-you-pay funding model was really designed with the activities of claims companies in mind because most of these merchants have the morals of alley cats and are happy to bang in claims left right and centre with no comeback on themselves for just how speculative they are and how much time and money they waste.
    Originally posted by ~Brock~
    I so agree with you. Why no one has clamped down on these opportunists I don't know.
    • magpiecottage
    • By magpiecottage 26th Mar 12, 8:22 PM
    • 9,114 Posts
    • 5,584 Thanks
    magpiecottage
    I so agree with you.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    Me too

    Why no one has clamped down on these opportunists I don't know.
    Probably because nobody wants to face up to the fact that making an allegation that is, or is likely to be, false in order to make a gain is fraud.

    That and the fact that FOS pays its adjudicators a backhander - sorry - a bonus for looking at cases and telling the poor adviser he has no case to answer (as he has already told them).
    Last edited by magpiecottage; 26-03-2012 at 9:31 PM.
    • ~Brock~
    • By ~Brock~ 26th Mar 12, 9:07 PM
    • 1,600 Posts
    • 1,519 Thanks
    ~Brock~

    Probably because nobody wants to face up to the fact that making an allegation that is, or is likely to be, false in order to make a gain is fraud.
    Originally posted by magpiecottage
    Probably also because the actual CMC regulator, the Ministry of Justice (the weakest regulator you could ever imagine) only got the job because nobody else, such as the OFT, wanted to do it.

    Their solution was to farm the day to day regulation out to the lowest bidder, which happened to be Staffordshire Council !!

    Now I don't know about them but if my own council is anything to go by they're out of their depth trying to regulate our bin collections!

    Result? Hundreds of CMC's running round causing havoc, ripping off the public and abusing the FOS process at every opportunity while the MoJ stands on the sidelines watching it happen.

    You really couldn't make this stuff up. I know I wish I was!
  • timmybear
    Are we really naiive enough to think that all these 500/850's wont come back to haunt consumers in future product pricing?
    Originally posted by ~Brock~
    I have always thought that we will all pick up the tab for it all eventually, one way or another.
  • timmybear
    Just like millions of them paid for expensive, often useless, PPI policies? .
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    That's the part which I don't think I will ever, ever understand. When a customer looks at what they are about to sign up to and sees a whopping great lump of front-loaded PPI, did they not think for a moment what it was 'worth'? Some of the horror stories I have read on here are from people who've paid almost as much for PPI as they borrowed from the lender (assuming the figures given were in fact correct). I hear it when they say "we were told we couldn't get the loan without it..." and "we felt under pressure..." and "we needed the money quickly..." and all the rest of it, but surely when one deals with their finances, it's not something to rush into or be bullied into?

    If I was told that I had to take on another X-thousand in addition to my loan and the interest, you can be sure that I'd think more than twice before agreeing to it.

    Some years ago Picture Loans were told by the Advertising Standards Authority to remove a TV commercial as it was claimed it diminished the seriousness of taking out loans (esp. secured loans) and that people needed to take their time to ensure they were doing the right thing. I totally agree that people rush into taking out debt without really understanding how serious it really is.

    Having said all that, when I think that people all over the country are falling foul of cold-callers who claim to be from Microsoft and are fueling an on-going scam, nothing should surprise me really. A fool and his money...
    • di3004
    • By di3004 26th Mar 12, 9:52 PM
    • 42,528 Posts
    • 56,679 Thanks
    di3004
    I understand the new Recruitment Agency rules came into affect from 01 October 2011, once worked for 12 or 13 weeks - an agency worker should receive the same pay as permanent staff.

    I take it this will stand for the FOS as well??

    http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Understandingyourworkstatus/Agencyworkersandemploymentagencies/DG_198913
    The one and only "Dizzy Di"
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 26th Mar 12, 9:56 PM
    • 23,613 Posts
    • 12,943 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    when they say "we were told we couldn't get the loan without it..." and "we felt under pressure..." and "we needed the money quickly..." and all the rest of it, but surely when one deals with their finances, it's not something to rush into or be bullied into?
    Originally posted by timmybear
    As usual, you're applying your own approach to finances to everyone else. Not everyone checks their statements religiously or puts aside savings every month. Some live hand to mouth through necessity (they aren't paid enough) and some choose a spending lifestyle.
    The fact is that many of the people sold PPI with their loans WERE subjected to high pressure sales techniques encouraged by the lenders.
    I can certainly see your point about people who may well be "jumping on the bandwagon" and making spurious claims about how their PPI was (mis) sold to them. However, to say the millions who succumbed were "fools" is going a step too far.
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

108Posts Today

1,620Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • This is a very useful and interesting, factual piece about what the PM's new Brexit proposals mean and how new they? https://t.co/qM1bCz6FZp

  • After two cancellations, I'm on the 3rd train back from Manch. Just heard its being rerouted as someone's taken tak? https://t.co/sRO4cvoWIw

  • RT @helen_undy: It's hard campaigning at the moment. Trying to cut through amid Brexit votes, protests & political resignations can feel fu?

  • Follow Martin