View more on these topics

Why can’t banks admit PPI failures?

Steve Tolley

By now the story of missold payment protection insurance isn’t exactly news, but it is certainly still newsworthy.

As PR offensives seek to reassure us the big financial institutions which floored the economy through obfuscation, complexity and greed are actually interested in doing consumers a favour, behind the scenes chicanery continues. They must think we’re mugs.

We will never get rid of the odd wide-boy looking for extra money for the wine bar, and so it may not be possible to eradicate misselling completely. But a new FCA thematic review on PPI redress says 85 per cent of complaints about single premium PPI products were upheld. That is deliberate and surely required approval at a high level.

And it wasn’t as if when all this emerged it was a complete surprise. The now defunct FSA took over regulating general insurance (including PPI) in 2005 fully aware of “potential issues”.

Thematic reviews, mystery shops and a fistful of fines and pronouncements from the regulator about “mainly disappointing” selling practices were largely ignored. Single premium PPI product sales only stopped in 2009 when the regulator “secured an agreement” from industry they would pack it in. 

Since 2011, firms have paid out £16bn in compensation in the biggest consumer redress programme in UK financial services history. Given the scandal PPI has become you would have thought those guilty of taking their customers for a ride would be busting a gut to show they have changed. But, it looks like some at least have not changed at all.

Today’s thematic review says while some large firms have bucked their ideas up, other have failed to assure the regulator “of the overall fairness and consistency” of their PPI complaint handling.

As a result of its findings, the FCA has asked firms to review 2.5 million PPI complaints which may have been unfairly rejected or where consumers may have been paid too little in redress.

Turning to medium firms, the FCA says some have failed to demonstrate “their senior managements’ understanding of the issues or commitment to correcting them”.

Like I say, these firms must think we are mugs. But then again with so few people switching accounts or turning away from the banks that did much of the misselling, perhaps we are.

Steve Tolley is reporter at Money Marketing

Recommended

Natwest-Branch-Building-2013-700.jpg
2

NatWest repeals mortgage ban against Financial Ltd advisers

NatWest has resumed mortgage lending through members of network Financial Limited. The lender placed a temporary suspension on new mortgage applications from Financial brokers earlier this month after the firm was banned from recruiting for four and a half months by the FCA. Other lenders conducted a review of business with the network but continued to lend. […]

Personal tax

CPD: Personal tax

The latest edition of Newsbrief counts as 1 hour of structured CPD and covers the regulatory and marketplace changes that took place during July 2014. Visit the Money Marketing CPD Centre to answer 10 multiple choice questions and complete this CPD activity. Just click into your CPD Plan and you’ll find each month’s marketplace changes round-up in your activity list.

FCA-Building-Blue-Sky-700x450.jpg

FCA reveals 28% surge in ‘suspicious transaction’ reports

The number of suspicious transactions reported to the FCA has increased by 28 per cent in its first year in operation.  Data obtained from the regulator by law firm Pinsent Masons through a Freedom of Information request shows the number of suspicious transaction reports rose from 1,099 in 2012/13 to 1,409 in 2013/14. Suspicious transactions […]

Simon-Chamberlain-at-Platforum-event-2013-700.jpg

Succession acquires advice firm in £3m deal

Consolidator Succession has acquired Hart Financial in a deal worth £3.12m. The acquisition of Hart is the firm’s tenth purchase and adds £75m in assets under advice. Succession operates an acquisition strategy that sees advice firms join as appointed representatives with a view to  full acquisition after they have adopted Succession’s systems and processes. Its […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. The mugs are the current clients of these banks who are being forced to overpay so this can happen. The regulator is adopting its standard current approach of throwing stones and seeing if it hits anything.

    The biggest scandal is that financial reporters continue to fail the public by missing out that they are actually paying for all these fines, ineffective reviews etc through the charges they pay to their banks.

  2. Why didn’t the regulator swing into action years before PPI mis-selling reached epidemic proportions and became a national scandal, with unknown but almost certainly very large numbers of people claiming for and often receiving compensation to which they’re not actually entitled, frequently egged on by CMC’s? Some people have received compensation for having been allegedly mis-sold contracts against which they’ve actually made successful claims.

    This regulatory FAILURE has brought about huge damage to the industry’s reputation ~ the very thing that it’s supposed to enhance. Yet who will be held to account? Nobody. It’s always somebody else’s fault, whilst the people who allowed it to happen get off scot free.

  3. Well said Julian. I remember a number of years ago the Regulator giving “Guidance” that we should be recommending PPI for every mortgage sold as it was considered very bad practice in not doing so. My network would allow a mortgage to be completed without MPPI unless the client signed a disclaimer That coming from the same organisation who has been condemning this as a disgusting scandal for years.

  4. To be fair, it’s not the product that’s at fault, so to lambast the FSA for having endorsed it as a potentially valuable adjunct to a mortgage is not quite appropriate. The fault lay in the way in which it was sold, namely with a view to maximising commission over and above suitability. I sold just one, as an integrated element of an MPTA policy and the amount of trouble I had to take to ensure the clients understood all the options (and to document them properly) was surprisingly time consuming. The banks just didn’t bother and got carried away with what, in hindsight, seems to have been a complete lack of regulatory policing.

  5. Well said Julian. I remember a number of years ago the Regulator giving “Guidance” that we should be recommending PPI for every mortgage sold as it was considered very bad practice in not doing so. My network would allow a mortgage to be completed without MPPI unless the client signed a disclaimer That coming from the same organisation who has been condemning this as a disgusting scandal for years.

Leave a comment

Close

Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm

Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com