FOS upholds 92% of PPI complaints

The Financial Ombudsman Service is upholding 92 per cent of the complaints it is receiving about payment protection insurance.
Complaints data published by the FOS today shows the proportion of PPI complaints resolved in favour of the consumer has gone from 55 per cent between April and June to 92 per cent between July and September.
The FOS says the rate of PPI complaints upheld has increased as banks have agreed with the FOS’ findings on complaints that were previously put on hold during the British Bankers’ Association’s judicial review of PPI complaint measures.
The FOS has seen a 66 per cent drop in the number of PPI complaints referred to it, from 56,025 between April and June to 19,259 between July and September.
Mortgage complaints referred to the FOS have gone up by 37 per cent over the last quarter, from 2,044 to 2,796. Over the same period 33 per cent of mortgage complaints were upheld.
Complaints about whole of life policies are up 52 per cent over the last quarter from 393 cases to 596. Some 32 per cent of complaints were resolved in favour of the consumer.
The FOS raised concerns earlier this month about the level of complaints it is receiving about reviewable whole of life policies, saying consumers felt it was not made clear to them that their premiums could increase significantly after a set period of time.
Personal pensions complaints are up 46 per cent from 347 to 506, with 37 per cent upheld.
There were 46 complaints about structured capital at risk products between July and September, and 96 per cent of structured product complaints were upheld over the same period.
The FOS received 371 complaints about portfolio management over the quarter and upheld 61 per cent.
It received 304 complaints about investment Isas, 200 complaints about unit-linked investment bonds, 186 about with-profits bonds, and 125 complaints about Sipps.
The FOS upheld 61 per cent of complaints about portfolio management, 57 per cent of investment Isa complaints, and 67 per cent of unit-linked investment bonds complaints.
It also upheld 23 per cent of with-profit bonds complaints, and 54 per cent of Sipp complaints.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Most popular
-
Providers: Scottish independence could end pension tax relief for millions
-
Aegon moves ARC platform admin in-house from Novia
-
Co-op halts new business lending
-
FCA fines JP Morgan International Bank £3.1m for wealth management failings
-
'Catch us if you can': Small firms to dodge auto-enrolment duties
Most commented
-
Neil Liversidge: Would anyone use 'hard fees' if they didn't have to?
-
Nic Cicutti: Advisers and fund managers need to tackle their charges
-
Providers: Scottish independence could end pension tax relief for millions
-
FCA under pressure to re-think Sipp cap-ad plans
-
Threesixty launches DFM due diligence service
Most emailed
-
Providers: Scottish independence could end pension tax relief for millions
-
Just Retirement to launch long-term care annuity as sales slump
-
'Money Sickness Syndrome' doubles since credit crunch
-
BoI reverses mortgage rate hike for 1,200 borrowers
-
FCA fines JP Morgan International Bank £3.1m for wealth management failings






Readers' comments (2)
Anonymous | 18 Oct 2011 12:59 pm
So, as the economic situation begins to bite and more people are made redundant - are we going to see an increase in complaints that PPI was NOT recommended?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
FemaleIFA | 19 Oct 2011 0:15 am
I've come across cases now, where to FOB off a client or a claim's company...banks are denying that they the client has ever taken out PPI. One case I'm looking at now involving a relative clearly shows from the copy of the contract that a single premium payment protection plan was indeed taken out, when my relative had no idea if it had or not.
In another case a lender denied PPI being on the card & tossed back the complaint, when actually when the client checked - he had a statement clearly showing that he had paid £34 in card protection that month!
How do they get away with it?!!
Anyone else seen this new tactic...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment