Shackle these shameless banks

[EXC]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle4082035.ece

[argentarius]

Re: Shackle these shameless banks

The section of the article claiming that the BBA's analysis is wrong-headed is, itself, wrong-headed:

Apart from being self-interested, this analysis is wrong-headed. Research suggests that without the hard sell, only 10 per cent to 20 per cent of borrowers opt for PPI, but the banks sell to about 40 per cent of loan customers. Better that those who genuinely want cover are made to seek it independently than millions being sold costly policies that they don't want or need.

It is scarcely surprising that more people opt for PPI when it's sold to them than when it's not. :rolleyes: That doesn't prove it's a bad thing. And with the economy in down-turn, there will be more and more people glad that they had bought PPI.

All the issues about the cost of PPI, and the amount the banks make out of it, are well and good. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater by suggesting that people should be made to go and find the cover themselves, if they want it, is IMHO excessive.

I'd vastly prefer that banks are required to tell customers that PPI is optional, and to tell them that they can buy it on a standalone basis as well as from the bank with the loan, than that they are banned from selling it at all.

[Froggy]

Re: Shackle these shameless banks

This is what the BBA actually said:

"It is important that customers do not find themselves short of valuable protection and so new proposals on the selling of Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) must be considered carefully, the British Bankers' Association (BBA) said today (June 5).

The proposals, contained in a consultation document published by the Competition Commission, are the result of a review of the competitiveness of the product.
Angela Knight, chief executive of the BBA said: "The report and discussion document provide some useful food for thought but if some of the recommendations are adopted it could leave customers exposed just as economic conditions are worsening."
"The industry has moved on since the Competition Commission research has been carried out. Customers are better able to shop around and make comparisons, there is more choice around and customers are provided with a separate document showing the key facts of the policy before they take it out."
"There are some issues that concern us and we shall respond to the discussion document explaining what those concerns are. It's important that customers don't end up finding themselves worse off as a result of unintended consequences"

[EXC]

Re: Shackle these shameless banks

I'd vastly prefer that banks are required to tell customers that PPI is optional, and to tell them that they can buy it on a standalone basis as well as from the bank with the loan, than that they are banned from selling it at all.

But surely they are required to do this this anyway.

[Froggy]

Re: Shackle these shameless banks

i have to say that I was gonna say the same but in the end went for the BBA quote.

[argentarius]

Re: Shackle these shameless banks

No, they aren't currently required "to tell them that they can buy it on a standalone basis as well as from the bank with the loan". That's a worthwhile improvement in requirements, don't you agree?

[Froggy]

Re: Shackle these shameless banks

Argentarius, exc and myself were at issue with the first sentance alone(well I was) ie that banks were required to tell customers that PPI was optional. That is a requirement. The second part of the sentence is not a requirement which is fine to point out.

[EXC]

Re: Shackle these shameless banks

No, they aren't currently required "to tell them that they can buy it on a standalone basis as well as from the bank with the loan". That's a worthwhile improvement in requirements, don't you agree?

Yeah brilliant. ''We'll flog you this over-priced pile of junk anytime''.

[argentarius]

Re: Shackle these shameless banks

Eh? That doesn't follow from my comment at all.

I mean "on a standalone basis from someone other than the lender" in case that wasn't already clear. There would be no logic or point in them saying that the PPI is available standalone to someone who was already buying the loan.

[argentarius]

Re: Shackle these shameless banks

Argentarius, exc and myself were at issue with the first sentance alone(well I was) ie that banks were required to tell customers that PPI was optional. That is a requirement. The second part of the sentence is not a requirement which is fine to point out.

I'm well aware of that. It was the second part which was the improvement I was suggesting, although the reason I mention the first part is that there is strong evidence that some (not normally banks but "second rung") lenders aren't very good at complying with the first part either even though it has always been a requirement.