View more on these topics

FCA pays advertising giant £400,000 for PPI deadline campaign

Shop-Shopping-Retail-UK-High-Street-700x450.jpg

The FCA has paid advertising agency M&C Saatchi more than £400,000 as part of plans to introduce a deadline on payment protection insurance complaints.

The regulator has proposed setting a deadline for PPI claims of June 2019, and is looking to launch a wide-scale consumer communications campaign to inform people of the new rules.

As part of a proposed £42m total cost of the campaign, the £444,413 paid to Saatchi so far has covered “campaign strategy and creative development work undertaken,” the FCA says in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

The FCA has also procured a contract with Marylebone-based advertising agency Manning Gottlieb to implement the campaign, but has not spent any money on the company’s services at this stage.

The FCA confirms in the response that any further media campaign buying activity will be paid from the proposed £42m cost if the awareness campaign goes ahead.

The regulator has proposed funding the advertising campaign through a levy on 18 firms that each reported over 100,000 complaints about advising, selling and arranging PPI from 1 August 2009 to 1 August 2015.

The media awareness campaign was due to begin around June this year to coincide with when the PPI deadline rule would come in to force and two years ahead of its actual implementation to allow the FCA to produce the campaign.

However, in December last year, the FCA said that it had received a large volume of responses to its proposals around PPI, so the deadline and rule introduction may be pushed back a few months.

PPI complaints make up around 35 per cent of complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service, its latest data shows, with more than 110,000 coming in the first nine months of 2016/17.

Recommended

FCA logo glass 2 620x430
11

FCA set to cave in on PPI claims deadline

The FCA is set to back calls from the banks for a two-year deadline on bringing claims for missold payment protection insurance despite warnings from its own staff. The Times reports internal FCA documents which suggest a shift in thinking at the regulator which supports the introduction of a cut-off date for PPI complaints. In […]

FCA interior logo 620x430
1

FCA fines lender £2.4m over PPI complaints failure

The FCA has fined CT Capital £2.4m for serious failings in its treatment of payment protection insurance complaints. CT Capital was the parent company of a group of lenders and loan brokers and sold around 31,000 PPI policies between 2005 and 2008. It received £63m in commission as a result. However, the regulator says the […]

thimbnail

Almost nine in 10 employers admit failings with post-DRA compliance

The default retirement age (DRA) was abolished more than three years ago, yet new research from Jelf Employee Benefits suggests that the vast majority of employers still have some way to go to fully understand, comply and communicate the landmark legislation change that prevents older employees being forcibly retired on the grounds of age alone.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 21 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Given how long ago all PPI was sold, and given that I doubt there is anyone out there who doesn’t know about PPI claims. I’m curious as to how the FCS spending this amount of time and money on something that should already be time barred?

  2. Hold on !!!

    Just a couple of phone calls to a number of CMC’s would be all that was needed…….. they would have made sure every person in the land knew PPI claims were now time barred.

    New years resolution for 2017, please let the FCA acquire some common sense.

  3. Were it not for regulatory negligence on the part of the FSA, the mis-selling of PPI on an industrial scale would have been prevented and the national scandal that it’s now become wouldn’t exist. When, if ever, will the regulator be held properly to account for its own failures to do what it’s paid to?

    • Totally agree Julian – add this to SIPP’s (which has been ongoing, even 4 years after the FSA published their alerts), the FCA’s management of the RBS and its antics in relation to their notorious ‘Global Restructuring Group’ division, and the way in which the regulator are now requesting the fund management industry to be ‘more transparent’ – how about TRANSPARENT – full stop! How refreshing would it be for the regulator to impose CLEAR rules on all sectors, rather than the double standards that are clearly in operation, and have been for years. That may require yet another name change and a completely different shift in culture from the regulator. No time soon I dont think. I expect my third investigation now that I have published this comment!

  4. @ DH
    Absolutely right DH. Listening to the radio the amount that I do I can tell you PPI companies have been advertising the time bar possibility morning, noon and night.

  5. @ D H. Very rarely do bureaucrats have ‘common sense’ and, particularly pertinent to the regulator, they cannot write rules and regulations for such a concept. Without that in their ‘job spec.’ they would have to show initiative which is another concept beyond their ken!

  6. Neil F Liversidge 5th January 2017 at 10:48 am

    This is a scandalous and outrageous waste of OUR MONEY and whatever fool signed this off at the FCA should be fired. There can’t be a living person in this country who’d not had emails and unsolicited phone calls in the hundreds. I despair that we have to pay for such people.

    • Unlike you not to read before you rant, Neil. See paragraph 6.

    • Neil

      Its not our money ! its our clients we charge them appropriately to the tune of…. what is it now 1.5 billion, for the upkeep of these money wasting mumpties.

      I have never once, and never will do, put my hand in my own pocket to pay for such a money wasting and ignorant (in every corner) Leviathan. You run your own business I would wager you do the same ?

      If this is the cost of professionalism……. then so be it

      The cost of advice its to high…….. you bet your sweet arse it is

      I could go on but must remember, “to inhale the future and exhale the past”

  7. In the run up to GI regulation the banks were aware that PPI selling did not comply with TCF principles and were worried about misselling. Paul Moore’s book ‘Crash, Bank, Wallop’ confirms the HBOS CEO said it kept him awake at night. However, when this was pointed out to them people were forced to leave the Group Risk team as nothing was allowed to get in the way of sales. Let’s not forget that James Crosby was deputy chairman of the FSA at the time.

  8. The banks know who they sold their PPI to so why don’t they write to them? Why not have a full review so that even those who are afraid of complaining to their banks obtain justice?

  9. That’s funny, I get 20 items in my Facebook feed every week regarding PPI compensation!

    Instead of the FCA spending that money on something the ambulance chasers could do at their own expense, they could spend it on something useful – preferably reducing hard pressed advice firms fees perhaps?

  10. Waste of ink! Re Par 6, why not use the money to help fund Pension advice

  11. I was puzzled by this as well, a quick “round robin” mailing to all the claims chasers and job done. Maybe there’s a statutory reason why the FCA have to run an advert in that way estates / repossession sales have to be advertised, although if it’s solely for that reason couldn’t it be done without involving a top flight agency? Still I suppose if the cost is being met by the perpetrators, why worry…..

  12. Different year, same old nonsense. If this was an accountable organisation which had to answer to shareholders I suspect the board would be fired. However in many unaccountable quangos, the behaviour is frequently akin to that of a tinpot dictator. It is after all only other people’s money and there’s plenty more where that came from. Eventually most tinpot dictators get their comeuppance. I can but dream ……….

  13. It would be a lot simpler and £millions cheaper if the FCA simply instructed all claims management companies to stop dealing with PPI claims. There’s really no need for an expensive advertising campaign. There, just saved the FCA over £40m advertising costs. Sorry Saatchi.

  14. Living the Dream Dream ..... 6th January 2017 at 11:12 am

    You guys! You go on and on everytime your ‘bosses’ come up with yet another absolutely ridiculous plan or idea but you’ll never do anything about it. Dont get me wrong, I do believe they are and always have been, the most incompetent bunch that ever shared the same room, but please, coffee shop ranting wont change anything!

  15. Persons who have never had a PPI policy miss-sold should be exempt from this cost. Why can’t I ask for a deduction of these costs from the FCA on a point of justice and allow the companies who made financial risk/reward assessments prior to miss-selling pay for their ow mistakes? After all, these are the guys who took the commission. Such a strange situation to be in, I can’t think of any other reality where this would have been acceptable for all of these years – no wonder the public has zero faith in financial services – no one promotes or operates with any true morality.

  16. I’ve spent over £40m advertising PPI Claims – and I own one CMC. This level of money is a joke. £8bn to pay out and 40m to advertise the fact. They outsourced PPI Claims to CMCs the day they never made the banks pay the clients back… If you think about it, I’d say we’ve done a good job of telling everyone. This is just a side show to them closing CMCs through price capping. There are no real intentions other than to make this calamity go away… Cheers

Leave a comment