FOS warns PPI review may exhaust reserves

The Financial Ombudsman Service will call on the FSA to increase the industry levy after warning its reserves would be exhausted within six weeks if firms decided to stop co-operating on payment protection insurance complaints.

In its consultation on its annual plan and budget for 2011/2012, published today, FOS chief ombudsman and chief executive Natalie Ceeney (pictured) says the £500 case fee and the total levy paid by the financial services industry will be frozen.

But the ombudsman also reveals it plans to ask the FSA to set a levy that covers both the total levy for 2010/2011 and any necessary boost needed to its reserves as a result of the British Bankers’ Association judicial review.

A FOS spokeswoman says the FOS will recommend to the FSA that the additional levy be attributed to the fee block that generates most of the FOS’ workload. For PPI, this would be the banks and other PPI providers.

She says: “We are trying to get an idea of the workload we are likely to receive. The FSA generally apportion the levy on where the workload is coming from. That is what we are recommending in this case.”

Case fees provide 80 per cent of the ombudsman’s funding, with the remaining 20 per cent provided by the industry levy.

The BBA launched a judicial review of the FSA’s complaint handling measures for PPI in October.

The trade body requested a judicial review of the measures, and some decisions made by the FOS, from the High Court.

In its consultation on its annual plan and budget for 2011/2012, the FOS says the review adds “significant uncertainty” to its plans and forecasts.

The FOS says: “We may not know the final outcome of this legal action much before the end of the 2011/2012 financial year. This means we could face some extreme, but far from implausible, operational and financial scenarios which might result in our incurring substantially increased costs with far lower income.

“For example, if financial businesses were to decide to suspend cooperation on PPI cases as a result of the legal action, our loss of income from case fees in just one month could lead to an operating monthly deficit of up to £4m. This would exhaust our reserves within six weeks.”

The ombudsman says this could cost the FOS between £10m and £30m, well in excess of its £14m reserves for the 2010/2011 financial year.

The FSA’s levies consultation paper is expected in February 2011.

In response to the BBA’s request for a judicial review in October, the FSA urged banks to continue processing PPI complaints.

But Lloyds Banking Group decided to stop handling PPI complaints and instead seek clarity from the FSA and the FOS over the review.

The latest complaints data from the FOS shows that between January 1 and June 30, 2010 the FOS dealt with 22,420 complaints relating to Lloyds. Some 12,750 cases related to Lloyds TSB Bank, with 8,474 cases concerning general insurance policies, including PPI, sold by the bank.

If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and

Readers' comments (18)

  • I hope that any increase in the FOS/FSA levy relating to dealing PPI complaints is paid for by the institutions that sold them, and NOT the IFA sector.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Another poorly managed business, with no clout over Banks, who seem to hold the upper hand....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am sure that if I stopped cooperating with FOS the FSA would withdraw my permissions, so how is it that Lloyds Bank is allowed to do it?

    Oh, silly me, I forgot about the FSA looking after, or being scared of its banking friends...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am sure that if I stopped cooperating with FOS the FSA would withdraw my permissions, so how is it that Lloyds Bank is allowed to do it?

    Oh, silly me, I forgot about the FSA looking after, or being scared of its banking friends...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Oh what a surprise! The Banks probably sold 95% of this rubbish and now don't want to co-operate with the review.

    Words fail me.........other than we (the IFA community, that is) will both pick up most of the tab and also the unwarranted bad press...again.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I thought the FSA had 'new powers' to bring a class action or provide the facility to do so.

    The FOS is not the place for these complaints, the suitablity of the sale canot be disputed in 99% of cases!!

    Will the RDR stop such banking catastropehes in future? NO IT WILL NOT.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Come on Hector, sort this out, it is another serious issue of fairness.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Come on Hector, sort this out, it is another serious issue of fairness.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Our last FOS case took 16 weeks for FOS to decide that Buy to let wasn't within their jusidiction despite being told at least 6 times by FOS staff that this was the case.

    At that point although it was clearly apparent that we actually we hadn't done anything wrong (in fact saving the client from themselves)

    We found out after offering our assistance that the client has a 'history' of claims to the FOS to see 'what they can get out of it' as its fair game..

    Maybe trying to stop this type of thing might help their funding and give us more respect for the system??

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • You cannot hear the screams of the IFA's being nailed to the cross for the laughter emitting from the bank boardrooms.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Advanced search

Poll

Should there be an RDR consumer awareness campaign?

Current Issue