Clydesdale Bank fined £20,678,300 for serious failings in PPI complaint handling – Fi

[Legal Beagles]

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has today fined Clydesdale Bank Plc (Clydesdale) £20,678,300 for serious failings in its Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) complaint handling processes between May 2011 and July 2013. This is the largest ever fine imposed by the FCA for failings relating to PPI. In mid-2011 Clydesdale implemented inappropriate policies which meant that... Read more »
Read More -> Clydesdale Bank fined £20,678,300 for serious failings in PPI complaint handling – Financial Conduct Authority


More...

A team within Clydesdale’s PPI complaint handling operation altered certain system print outs (in a small number of cases) to make it look as if Clydesdale held no relevant documents and deleted all PPI information from a separate print out listing the products sold to the customer.

[CYNthesys]

Re: Clydesdale Bank fined £20,678,300 for serious failings in PPI complaint handling

Typical, fined for doctoring PPI evidence with the intention of permanently depriving eligible customers, yet appear to escape prosecution in the criminal courts

[Amethyst]

Re: Clydesdale Bank fined £20,678,300 for serious failings in PPI complaint handling

Disgusting behaviour.

Clydesdale’s conduct meant that up to approximately 42,200 rejected complaints may have been rejected unfairly, and up to approximately 50,900 complaints that were upheld may have resulted in inadequate redress for customers.


2.3. During the Relevant Period:

(1) Clydesdale implemented an inappropriate policy which meant that its complaint handlers would not search for any documents relating to PPI complaints about loans and mortgages which had been repaid more than seven years prior to the date of the complaint, on the basis that the documents fell outside Clydesdale’s seven year document retention period. This was despite the fact that, in a small percentage of cases, relevant documents had not in fact been destroyed and were still readily available on Clydesdale’s electronic systems. The Authority makes no criticism of the document retention period itself;

(2) Clydesdale implemented another inappropriate policy which meant that, when calculating redress for credit card PPI complaints, complaint handlers would not consider credit card statements that pre-dated the year 2000, or take steps to estimate the PPI payments made before that date. Credit card statements were available, albeit with large gaps, for some of the period pre-dating the year 2000, but the statements were held in microfiche rather than electronic form and were therefore not easily retrievable;

(3) a team within Clydesdale’s PPI complaint handling operation adopted a practice between May 2012 and June 2013 of providing false information to the Financial Ombudsman Service (“the ombudsman service”). This information was provided in response to requests from the ombudsman service for documents evidencing the information Clydesdale held about the PPI policies sold to individual customers. Specifically, the team:

(a) altered system print outs relating to loans and mortgages that had been repaid more than seven years prior to the date of the complaint, to make it look as if Clydesdale held no relevant loan documentation when in fact such documents were available (the Authority considers that this is likely to have affected a small number of cases); and

(b) deleted all PPI information from a separate print out listing the products sold to the customer.

These practices were not known to or authorised by Clydesdale’s management or PPI leadership team;

(4) Clydesdale was not transparent with, and in some cases provided misleading communications to, customers and the ombudsman service with regard to how complaints affected by the policies described at paragraphs 2.3(1) and (2) above were dealt with;

(5) Clydesdale failed to ensure that the complaint handlers responsible for dealing with complaints referred to the ombudsman service were given adequate guidance and support;

(6) Clydesdale failed to ensure that its complaint handlers were appropriately identifying cases where the PPI policy sold was, or may have been, unsuitable for the customer; and

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Clydesdale Bank fined £20,678,300 for serious failings in PPI complaint handling

I don't think that Clysedale are the only ones to have carried out these false actions.
Sparkie

[CYNthesys]

Re: Clydesdale Bank fined £20,678,300 for serious failings in PPI complaint handling

BAR STEWARDS
I have proof that during the investigation of my complaint to the Financial Ombudsman, Clydesdale withheld relevant information
and lied to the Ombudsman that specific other information (which I later managed to obtain) didnt exist.

[Fred]

Re: Clydesdale Bank fined £20,678,300 for serious failings in PPI complaint handling

I don't think that Clysedale are the only ones to have carried out these false actions.
Sparkie

Definitely & its hardly ever in the consumers favour is it ?

[CYNthesys]

Re: Clydesdale Bank fined £20,678,300 for serious failings in PPI complaint handling

WHY AREN'T THE LYING BANKERS IN PRISON

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...I-victims.html