Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

[EXC]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

These very same people did not fall into a category of people who tended to save less......

''We [The Competition Commission] received some evidence from parties about the types of consumers most likely to purchase PPI. HSBC told us that PPI was more likely to be purchased by customers who.......had little or no savings''.

''HBOS told us that in 2005 the mean savings of a customer who purchased PPI were £1,093; and the mean savings of a customer who did not purchase PPI were £2,807.''

http://www.competition-commission.or...nd_app_2_6.pdf

[Angry Cat]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

For the avoidance of doubt, my comments related to credit card PPI.

The sale of general insurance was not properly regulated prior to the FSA taking over from the GISC, who in turn took over from the ABI.

Many many consumers were mis-sold this insurance, not because they had little knowledge or a lack of control over their finances. These very same people did not fall into a category of people who tended to save less or, lacked any financial savvy.

They were fooled by ingeniously written 'Limitation & Exclusion' clauses!

[skv123]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

It could be that i'm being incredibly harsh but people who were mis-sold PPI are in the vast majority people with very little knowledge and control of their finances.

As such the assumption that they are not savers sounds very much correct for the majority.

However, people like the ones on this forum may well NOW be much more clued up about their finance and be diligent savers who won't rush out and consume.

As a side note... Can you recommend me a decent savings account Bill?

[EXC]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

To assume that these consumers fall into a category of people who needed to borrow money is not factually correct.

It's not an assumption - PPI on unsecured loans is the largest market category by far and in fact four times larger than that of credit cards.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/inv...ns/payment.pdf

[Bill-K]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

I have to say that I fully respect your opinions - mostly - EXC. BUT - how can it be reasonable to THEN assume that someone who is in the position you describe, would make the supreme effort of searching out a savings account that paid interest at the ridiculously low rate of 8% SIMPLE, and then put their money in there ?

Presumably, they have bills to pay, and possibly bailiffs to deal with. Are they REALLY gonna search for a savings account that pays a SIMPLE rate of interest ?

Or is it me that's being unreasonable ???

The FSA/HMRC seem to think that THIS is what is reasonable...!!!

No comprendez....

BUT - I fully expect a response that floors me. Do it, guv'nor.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

What the economist is saying is that since PPI was sold (or indeed mis-sold ) to a category people who needed to borrow money, those people would in general terms necessarily not be savers and that compensation would more likely be spent than saved which helps the economy. That must make sense.

Likewise if a mis-selling scenario applied to a savings product any compensation would more likely be saved than spent and not helpful to the economy.

Having a credit card became a necessity of ones financial life!
Consumers who applied for same wanted peace of mind in the event of sickness, unemployment or death. Thus they took out the PPI as recommended by the credit card provider.

To assume that these consumers fall into a category of people who needed to borrow money is not factually correct.

Credit cards became the norm for most in their daily lives whether for business or leisure.

[EXC]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

What the economist is saying is that since PPI was sold (or indeed mis-sold ) to a category people who needed to borrow money, those people would in general terms necessarily not be savers and that compensation would more likely be spent than saved which helps the economy. That must make sense.

Likewise if a mis-selling scenario applied to a savings product any compensation would more likely be saved than spent and not helpful to the economy.

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

Since a PPI is not a savings plan and the mis-selling by the banks and institutions depleted peoples ability to save or spend their money how they wished after all it was their money and not the banks money in the first place.

But why? It's a perfectly reasonable observation to make.

[EXC]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

That is why!

But why? It's a perfectly reasonable observation to make.

[Bill-K]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

I must admit that I feel insulted when such 'experts' as this decide that their own 'expert opinion' is good enough to support such assumptions. Let it FIRST be shown that there is good evidence for such assumptions - available for us ALL to make our own assumptions from.

THEN, let the FSA openly support those assumptions, and provide the evidence upon which THEIR support is based.

THEN ask the FSA exactly how this squares with THEIR assumption - apparently agreed with HMRC - that those of us who were 'poorly' mis-sold PPI would have otherwise invested that money in savings accounts which paid a whopping 8% p.a. SIMPLE INTEREST.

I have yet to find such an account in the market place, anyway. Too many assumptions seem to be made here, and not enough facts established, I reckon.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

Why?

He added that the type of people who took out those "obviously poor" policies tended to save less.

That is why!

[EXC]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

A rather sweeping statement...
And, what a cheek!

Why?

[Angry Cat]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

:
Philip Rush, a UK economist at Nomura, said: "Once that money hits people's pockets or their bank accounts, it's fair to say that a fair portion will be consumed, particularly when their finances are otherwise squeezed." He added that the type of people who took out those "obviously poor" policies tended to save less.

A rather sweeping statement...
And, what a cheek!

[EXC]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......



Mis-sold PPI claims cost banks £557m

Financial Ombudsman Service has upheld nine out of ten claims, with compensation payments averaging £2,750

Hundreds of thousands of people have won compensation for mis-sold payment protection insurance, with banks paying out £557m in the first six months of the year alone, according to new figures.

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), which rules on complaints about the controversial insurance that have been rejected by the banks, has seen the number of cases it has become involved with climbed to more than 3,000 in the last two months.
It has upheld nine out of 10 PPI cases in favour of consumers, with compensation payments averaging £2,750. Payouts vary from £200 to more than £10,000.

The number of complaints has been so high that the FOS may have to take on more staff. "These numbers are pretty unsettling for us," Natalie Ceeney, chief financial ombudsman, wrote in the organisation's latest newsletter.

In total 532,000 people made a complaint about PPI in the first half of the financial year. The insurance, designed to provide cover in case of illness or redundancy, was sold alongside financial products, often without customers' knowledge, and rarely paid out.
The high street banks were told by the Financial Services Authority in May to speed up compensation payments after they abandoned a court challenge that had stalled claims. The banks dealt with the bulk of the 200,000 claim backlog by the end of August, the deadline set by the FSA, paying out £230m in compensation that month alone.

According to FSA rules, complaints should be dealt with within eight weeks, although this does not include making a compensation payment. In one case, Mark Southee, a freelance technical writer, made a claim through a claims management company and received a letter from Lloyds TSB in August offering him about £13,000 of compensation, but he has yet to receive the money. "Eighty work days since Lloyds TSB said they'd pay my PPI claim 'shortly' – it seems the Lloyds TSB team are just telling people deadlines to get them off their backs," he said.

A Lloyds spokesman said the bank was complying with FSA rules and processing all claims within 28 days, but had encountered a one-off processing issue recently and was "working extremely hard to clear that backlog". Lloyds, the biggest seller of PPI following its takeover of HBOS, set aside £3.2bn to cover claims in May while Barclays set aside £1bn and HSBC made provisions for £270m. The banks face bills of more than £5bn to compensate customers and cover the adminstration costs involved.

Ceeney said: "If all this means we'll need significantly more resource and capacity to handle ever-higher numbers of PPI complaints, then we need – now – to build this into the plan and budget we'll be consulting on in the new year."

The FOS has 300 adjudicators working on PPI claims exclusively, but is recruiting more people. The big high street banks were expected to hire up to 6,000 workers to handle PPI complaints, with Lloyds bringing in 500 extra staff in May.

Some 80% of the complaints received by the FOS were brought by claims management companies, but Ceeney has warned that some of these firms charge up to a quarter of any resulting compensation in fees.

"It doesn't improve your chances, and we are a free service," an FOS spokesman reiterated. The average time it takes the FOS to resolve a complaint is three to six months, but the surge in complaints threatens to push this further out. About 90% of cases are settled through its initial decision, against which both sides – the consumer and the bank – can appeal.

Rising payouts for miss-sold PPI could prove a boon not just for consumers but the economy as a whole, by boostingconsumer spending.

Philip Rush, a UK economist at Nomura, said: "Once that money hits people's pockets or their bank accounts, it's fair to say that a fair portion will be consumed, particularly when their finances are otherwise squeezed." He added that the type of people who took out those "obviously poor" policies tended to save less.


Mis-sold PPI claims cost banks £557m | Money | The Guardian

[Angry Cat]

Re: Latest Update on PPI Judicial Review - NO APPEAL - get your claims in......

all credit card claims now done through post and internet and being rejected and are then going on to be rejected by fos, dont reckon the banks will have to pay out as much as they have provided for, unles there is self employed or pre existing medical condition you dont have a chance and fos wont back you up

The source of your information came from where?
And it would also be interesting to know exactly by date/year which postal and internet credit card applications that included PPI are being rejected by the FOS.