MSE News: Guest Comment: PPI was mis-sold but isn't bad
Options
Former_MSE_Helen
Posts: 2,382 Forumite
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 ..."
"The dodgy selling of PPI is well-known but Shane Craig, from Paymentcare, says the product shouldn't be demonised ..."
0
Comments
-
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 most0 -
-
PPI's should be demonised until the major banks wake themselves up
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.
Only those who were missold.Even though they say they have put a lot of money aside, do you really believe they intend paying everyone back ?
Good idea.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.
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.I would never trust a bank selling me insurance ever again0 -
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.magpiecottage wrote: »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.
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.0 -
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.0
-
pompeyfaith wrote: »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.
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 free0 -
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.0
-
marshallka wrote: »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.
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.0 -
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!0 -
Berryhillrunner wrote: »
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.
The FOS is funded entirely by the financial services industry - meaning zero tax.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards