View more on these topics

FOS increases staff by 25% after PPI claims surge

FOS

The Financial Ombudsman Service has increased its staff numbers by 25 per cent over the last year under the weight of payment protection insurance misselling with plans to keep hiring if complaints continue at current levels.

In the last year it has recruited 500 more staff to deal exclusively with PPI claims, bringing its total workforce to 2,500.

A FOS spokeswoman says: “If we continue to receive PPI claims at the same volume we are seeing then it is not unrealistic that at the some point in the next year we can upsize again.

In its ombudsman news, FOS chief executive Natalie Ceeney says it has “scaled up significantly” to keep pace with demand.

She says: “We’ve now received half a million complaints in total about PPI – and so far this year we’ve handled double the number of cases that we had geared up to receive, following public consultation last year.

“Whatever happens, clearly PPI – on top of a growing caseload in other areas – will present us with some major challenges for some time to come.”

Ceeney adds: “We deal with many cases which should already have been sorted out by financial businesses. It is therefore disappointing that we have had to expand so significantly – and our growth is itself an illustration of some of the problems in the industry.”

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 12 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Yet more costs to the IFA sector to resolve the problems caused by the Banks !!

  2. Ceeney adds: ” It is therefore disappointing that we have had to expand so significantly – and our growth is itself an illustration of some of the problems in the industry.” – Really Ms Ceeney, I would wager that it is a consequence of the complete regulatory failure by the FSA and it’s predecessors in allowing the Banks to peddle this rubbish for over twenty years and then further failure on behalf of another so called regulator, the MoJ, in ‘authorising’ firms who fire off complaints about fictitous policies to her organisation in the hopes of some easy, yet fraudulent, compo – they wouldn’t be doing it if it didn’t work luv! Meanwhile my clients pay for it….

  3. Neil F Liversidge 27th November 2012 at 12:20 pm

    We pay for this. We meet the cost of the extra staff required to cope with the systematic fraud perpetrated by Claims Management Companies. All of you should report to the MOJ every single text message you get which fraudulently alleges you have money waiting for you if you’ll only put in a claim I have and one CMC is under investigation right now. We need to get every crooked claim handler investigated and deauthorised. Moaning won’t do it – but action this day just might.

  4. I’m not entirely comfortable with the statement, “If we continue to receive PPI claims at the same volume we are seeing then it is not unrealistic that at the some point in the next year we can upsize again.” My main issue with this is the word ‘can’, as this seems to be a case of they are able to justify it, rather than it being a necessity.

    Moreover, the numbers of PPI claims reaching the FOS that “should already have been sorted out by financial businesses” is something that needs addressing. The FOS should be (and quite possible is) providing feedback to the FSA about those firms that are not adequately dealing with their issues. The funding for any new staff should then be levied on those firms that are making such recruitment necessary.

    I would agree with ‘Anon’ (or believe that I do), in that the cost should not fall to the IFA sector as they have not been the cause of the issues.

  5. So answer me this one questin.

    How does one find 500 staff able to properly and competently assess a PPI claim in a fair and reasonable manner?

    Mind you, it doesn’t stop the FOS employing adjudicators without a good grounding and reasonable knowledge of financial products, apparently all you need is so called life skills and a degree, any degree will do, even one based on manure generation, in fact that may be the best one to have as so much is generated by the FOS, they must be drowing in it.

    Desperate times needing desperate measures or just sheer desperation.

  6. I had a claim sent to my company for mis-sold PPI by a muck spreading company who said they represented a client. The client denied this and although the muck spreader had sent the claim to another firm and claim was not upheld they then sent it to me. I DID NOT sell PPI to the client the muck spreader was doing what most of the muck spreader companies do through muck and hope it sticks somewhere!!! High TIME FOS charged these firms with costs of the IFA

  7. Enough is enough.

    I’m sure, like me, we are all sick and tired of this now. What other industry would allow this blatant abuse to continue?

    Why aren’t the networks or the so called representative bodies taking a hard line stance and FIGHTING this???

    Is it any wonder that financial advisers are leaving the industry in droves now? These ambulance chasers are parasites and we should be allowed to counter sue them for spurious claims put forward to the FOS.

    If anyone is or has started an action group, then please count me in and get in touch…

  8. Nothing is going to change, I had an interesting conversation the other day,

    The FSA, FOS etc etc will do nothing to stop CMC’s the way they see it is that CMC,s are a quick and easy way for the slate to be wiped clean on or just after 2013 and all the dirty washing has been cleaned.

    The fact that we are again being put out of business as a result is a plus point, you wait come June 2013 they will all be spouting about what a fantastic job they have done and we are already seeing a reduction in miss-selling complaints !!!

  9. You couldn't make it up 27th November 2012 at 2:43 pm

    With 2,500 staff (and increasing) FOS has become a hungry monster that must be fed those £500 chunks of money at an ever increasing rate.

    That the spiraling cost to industry of these claims will find their way back indirectly onto the average consumer is completely lost on them…..

  10. Even if you defend the accusation levied by the CMC they simply refer it to the FOS. There is no reason for them not to as the IFA has to pay the £500 FOS fee regardless of whether the complaint is thrown out or upheld!! Surely if the complaint is thrown out the CMC should be paying the bill???

  11. If FOS receive £500 for every complaint they investigate, and they’ve now received 500,000 complaints, why do we have to keep paying more in fees each year? Surely a turnover of £250 million is enough????

  12. The case fee for PPI is now £850… this is how to hit the main players (i.e. banks). This will help stop the FOS levy increasing too far.

    I would have though most quality IFAs do not pay FOS fees as they will benefit from the free case exemption.

    Where a complaint is raised but PPI was not sold, the IFA has the case to argue frivolous and vexatious, which if successful will lead to the case fee not being charged.

    I couldn’t agree more with the calls for every false complaint to be reported.

Leave a comment