Big story in the press this week centres around 'Project Kestrel'. Lloyds has launched a mass mailshot – to more than 230,000 Halifax customers offering possible refunds to customers who may have been mis-sold payment protection insurance on their credit cards. This outcome of 'root cause analysis' by the bank clearly has found significant failings in Halifax' processes during the sale of these particular policies and is limited to 2008 / 2009 sales.
The letters will prompt credit card customers to contact a special call centre operated by outsourcing firm Capita. I believe the centre will try to understand whether a customer was entirely unsuitable for the policy and award compensation accordingly. The article comes at an interesting time (just ahead of the Judicial Review, which begins tomorrow) and puts Lloyds in a more positive light despite its complete unwillingness to deal with its own PPI complaints.
I welcome the Association of Mortgage Intermediaries press release to its industry urging cooperation on Payment Protection Insurance complaints. Given certain lenders have decided to delay settlement of the majority of its outstanding claims, AMI's position appears fair and reasonable given the current climate.
We are still keen to continue pushing claims to settlement for our clients and should you wish to make a complaint, please contact PPI Return as soon as possible at www.ppireturn.co.uk
Monday, 24 January 2011
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
Natwest / RBS fined and Ombudsman continues to struggle
Some statistics were issued last week by the Ombudsman in relation to their ongoing PPI complaint caseload. They have highlighted an unexpected surge in PPI complaints, not captured by their 2010 annual review. The Ombudsman expects to receive 68,000 complaints which is well above the 46,000 cases for which it budgeted. As a result, the Ombudsman expects to resolve a total of 180,000 cases during the current financial year, almost 15% down on the 210,000 it originally predicted.
The Ombudsman confirmed the high volume of PPI cases has contributed to a drop in its income (80% of which comes from case fees) because it has resolved fewer disputes as a result. Furthermore, they confirmed their reserves had been "significantly" reduced after the 40% jump in the number of PPI complaints. As a result it is expected to increase the industry levy as its reserves would be exhausted within six weeks if firms decided to stop co-operating on payment protection insurance complaints.
It was always clear FOS would be significantly backlogged with the amount of cases it had to deal with. It has no option but to investigate those claims in accordance with its statutory obligations, but the amount of Judicial Review based cases is clearly the main reason for its troubles.
Additionally last week, the FSA has fined Royal Bank of Scotland and its parent bank NatWest £2.8m for multiple failings in the way the banks have handled customers' complaints. The investigation and subsequent fine was NOT confined to PPI complaints - but to other complaints the bank investigated. We have noticed some particular failings with Natwest group on the way it deals with PPI complaints (most notably going over the 8 week timeframe to investigate cases and making poor offers of compensation). Hopefully, we will see further sanctions and fines bestowed upon the group for its dealings in PPI complaints.
If you think you have been mis-sold a Payment Protection Insurance policy, do not hesitate to contact us via www.ppireturn.co.uk.
The Ombudsman confirmed the high volume of PPI cases has contributed to a drop in its income (80% of which comes from case fees) because it has resolved fewer disputes as a result. Furthermore, they confirmed their reserves had been "significantly" reduced after the 40% jump in the number of PPI complaints. As a result it is expected to increase the industry levy as its reserves would be exhausted within six weeks if firms decided to stop co-operating on payment protection insurance complaints.
It was always clear FOS would be significantly backlogged with the amount of cases it had to deal with. It has no option but to investigate those claims in accordance with its statutory obligations, but the amount of Judicial Review based cases is clearly the main reason for its troubles.
Additionally last week, the FSA has fined Royal Bank of Scotland and its parent bank NatWest £2.8m for multiple failings in the way the banks have handled customers' complaints. The investigation and subsequent fine was NOT confined to PPI complaints - but to other complaints the bank investigated. We have noticed some particular failings with Natwest group on the way it deals with PPI complaints (most notably going over the 8 week timeframe to investigate cases and making poor offers of compensation). Hopefully, we will see further sanctions and fines bestowed upon the group for its dealings in PPI complaints.
If you think you have been mis-sold a Payment Protection Insurance policy, do not hesitate to contact us via www.ppireturn.co.uk.
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
CPMA gathers momentum and banks pay £40 million to customers
Happy New Year !
The blog has been a little quiet over the last few weeks but quite a lot has happened in the PPI world over Xmas.
There has been a lot of views on the implementation of the new body (the Consumer Protection and Markets Authority CPMA). Essentially, it will replace the Financial Services Authority (FSA) as the organisation which will regulate financial businesses in the UK. Its been described as an organisation which will endeavour to be a 'Consumer Champion' and fight for the rights of the public. Whether the CPMA will provide that extra layer of protection will have to be seen to be believed. It is more than likely the organisation will be made up of the same individuals, at the same offices as the FSA - so we will have to see whether it will effect real change in the industry.
Another story mentioned over Christmas was that the banks have so far paid back £40 million to Mortgage PPI customers who were sold a policy, but the monthly premiums were unfairly increased during the recession to take into account the increased risk to the insurers. This meant customers who were told they would pay a set amount per month for the policy found themselves paying much more for the same insurance. The banks had until 30th June 2010 to make the refunds - but the FSA expected £60 million to be refunded, so this is quite substantially less than the amount expected.
The BBC also reported that banks were deliberately stalling claims and taking over the stipulated 8 weeks to investigate the cases. This means the Ombudsman's caseload increases significantly and takes even longer for the matters to settle. The reasoning behind this appears to be that some banks are refusing to analyse whether a case is subject to the terms of the Judicial Review and as such be suitable for a settlement.
A little more consideration on the particulars of the Judicial Review were assessed recently with the FSA and FOS both providing their responses to the BBA's application. The responses are detailed and look positive from a claimant perspective. The hearing is due to take place at the end of January 2011 with the decision probably due around spring time. I hope the High Court will dismiss the application without the further hearing, but we will have to see how this unfolds in due course.
If you think you have been mis-sold a Payment Protection Insurance policy, do not hesitate to contact us via http://www.ppireturn.co.uk/
The blog has been a little quiet over the last few weeks but quite a lot has happened in the PPI world over Xmas.
There has been a lot of views on the implementation of the new body (the Consumer Protection and Markets Authority CPMA). Essentially, it will replace the Financial Services Authority (FSA) as the organisation which will regulate financial businesses in the UK. Its been described as an organisation which will endeavour to be a 'Consumer Champion' and fight for the rights of the public. Whether the CPMA will provide that extra layer of protection will have to be seen to be believed. It is more than likely the organisation will be made up of the same individuals, at the same offices as the FSA - so we will have to see whether it will effect real change in the industry.
Another story mentioned over Christmas was that the banks have so far paid back £40 million to Mortgage PPI customers who were sold a policy, but the monthly premiums were unfairly increased during the recession to take into account the increased risk to the insurers. This meant customers who were told they would pay a set amount per month for the policy found themselves paying much more for the same insurance. The banks had until 30th June 2010 to make the refunds - but the FSA expected £60 million to be refunded, so this is quite substantially less than the amount expected.
The BBC also reported that banks were deliberately stalling claims and taking over the stipulated 8 weeks to investigate the cases. This means the Ombudsman's caseload increases significantly and takes even longer for the matters to settle. The reasoning behind this appears to be that some banks are refusing to analyse whether a case is subject to the terms of the Judicial Review and as such be suitable for a settlement.
A little more consideration on the particulars of the Judicial Review were assessed recently with the FSA and FOS both providing their responses to the BBA's application. The responses are detailed and look positive from a claimant perspective. The hearing is due to take place at the end of January 2011 with the decision probably due around spring time. I hope the High Court will dismiss the application without the further hearing, but we will have to see how this unfolds in due course.
If you think you have been mis-sold a Payment Protection Insurance policy, do not hesitate to contact us via http://www.ppireturn.co.uk/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)