900 PPI complaints a day for FOS
Share
The Financial Ombudsman Service received over 900 payment protection insurance complaints on average per working day between April and June.
This week, the FOS published complaint data for the three months from April 1 to June 30 this year.
It received a total of 81,301 complaints over the three months, more than double the number it received in the same period last year.
PPI complaints totalled 56,025, compared with 104,597 for the full 2010/11 financial year. Over half of the PPI complaints were upheld in the same period.
The figures reveal that complaints about Keydata products increased the ombudsman’s uphold rate for structured products complaints to 96 per cent compared with 52 per cent for the whole 2010/11 financial year.
The FOS received 34 new complaints related to structured capital-at-risk products during the period.
It also received 2,044 mortgage-related complaints, 603 mortgage endowment complaints, 393 complaints about whole of life policies and 347 about personal pensions.
FOS principal ombudsman and decisions director Tony Boorman says it is hard to tell whether the level of PPI complaints have peaked or not.
He says: “The real challenge, and continuing uncertainty, will not appear until the second half of the financial year.
“Banks and others are already reporting record numbers of new complaints and it will be some time before we see the impact of those on our figures.”
The financial products that consumers complained about most to the ombudsman service in April, May and June 2011
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (1)
Julian Stevens | 8 Aug 2011 10:09 am
But why did the FSA fail for so long to address the issue of MPPI mis-selling (it can't be because masses of evidence wasn't there), as a result of which it reached almost epidemic proportions and now the FOS is being all but overwhelmed with complaints?
When, if ever, are we going to see preventative regulation rather than yet another round of messy mopping-up after the damage has been done, not just to consumer well-being but to the reputation of the industry as a whole?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment