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......

This is good news.

It looks like the FSA are going to effectively put the dreaded CPP out of business by requiring them to undertake a past business review under s404 of the Financial Services & Markets Act which means they have to contact ALL the customers they flogged insurance to inviting them to complain.

Read this BBC investigation from 2010 which explains what CPP is all about BBC News - Row over ID theft insurance

From today's Financial Times:


CPP says it could go bust in weeks

CPP, the credit card insurer, has warned it could go bust within weeks after the Financial Services Authority indicated it was likely to impose one of the stiffest penalties yet for misselling.

In a sign of the increasingly tough stance adopted by regulators, the FSA has warned that it could force CPP to pay customers who bought its credit-card protection product hundreds of millions of pounds of compensation in claims that could date back to the regulator’s birth in 2005.

The York-based group also has been asked to abolish its automatic renewals policy, so that customers are forced to actively buy credit card protection every year, people familar with the matter said.

Paul Stobart, chief executive, warned that this would be “massively financially damaging” to the company. “The risk is the whole business is brought down,” he said. The fall from grace came as a severe blow to CPP, which had expanded rapidly since its stock market listing in 2010 but has seen its value fall by more than half since the start of the FSA investigation a year ago.

Shares in the company were suspended on Monday at 103p, valuing the company at just £176m – well below its peak market capitalisation of £561m hit last February. CPP said it was in talks with the FSA with the aim of agreeing a compromise deal within weeks. But although CPP can appeal the decision, Mr Stobart warned a long-running process could “in this case be too late [for the business].”

He warned that more than 1,969 jobs in 16 countries were at risk, including 1,000 in York, as a result of the discussions. The group’s UK business accounts for more than 70 per cent of revenues, more than three-quarters of which comes from renewals.

CPP has been under investigation by the FSA over the sale of so-called identity products since March last year. Identity protection products, which account for one-quarter of group revenues, offer protection for lost or stolen credit cards, including a one-stop service for customers who can make one phone call to cancel all bank and store cards.

The £30-a-year product is sold through banks including Barclays, which decided against renewing its contract with CPP last week, and Santander and RBS, both of which are understood to be reviewing their agreements in the light of the FSA’s investigation.

The move suggests regulators are extending their tough stance on misselling practices to wider concerns over the worth of products themselves. Consumer groups have complained that the policies have been unnecessary since 2009 when banks were made
liable for losses on stolen credit or bank cards. Shares in HomeServe, the domestic repairs insurer which is also under investigation by the FSA, fell amid concerns that they would be next in line for tough action by the FSA.

CPP argues that it is willing to abandon the insurance part of the policy and focus on the identity product’s other advantages, including cover for court and emergency cash if a wallet is lost abroad. It has also revamped its renewals policy by extending the cooling off period – where customers can withdraw – from 14 to 60 days after a contract has been renewed.

The FSA declined to give further details of the discussions but said it had “serious concerns about the manner in which customers were being sold identity theft and card protection policies by the firm.”

[EXC]

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

So are you saying that these consumers would never be contacted again by the firms even though there were systemic failings in their complaint handling?

No.

Root Cause Analysis only applies to systemic failings in sales and not to complaints handling. Customer contact exercises prompted by RCA apply only to ''non-complainants potentially affected by recurrent sales problems.''

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps10_12.pdf

[leclerc]

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

AC, did any of those who complained before the JR go to the FOS?

Do you have any numbers on how many complained even if that is a rough figure either from the forums/ or data?

I'm not one who likes sweeping statements without some form of evidence for the statement.

[Angry Cat]

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

You wouldn't be contacted if you'd already complained. It works like a car recall - no point in calling a car in for inspection if it's already been inspected.

Really?

In what context?

Many complained well before the judicial review and were basically told to bog off by the banks concerned.

So are you saying that these consumers would never be contacted again by the firms even though there were systemic failings in their complaint handling?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Lloyds Bank strips five directors of more than £1 million in bonuses

Lloyds Banking Group is to strip five directors of more than £1 million in bonuses as a penalty for a financial scandal that cost the taxpayer-backed bank £3.2 billion last year.


It will be the first time a British bank has exercised a “clawback” option on executive pay packages since the financial crisis and will lead to calls for similar moves at other lenders, including the Royal Bank of Scotland.

The Daily Telegraph has learned that Lloyds is taking back a bonus from senior bankers over their role in the mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI).

Eric Daniels, Lloyds’ former chief executive, will lose at least £360,000 of his 2010 bonus. Four other current and former directors will each have to forgo about £250,000.

The move comes after weeks of pressure from politicians and consumer groups for the banking sector to answer concerns that some bonus awards do not match individual performances.

The Financial Services Authority has also called for Britain’s banks to reflect one of the worst customer mis-selling scandals in recent memory in the pay packages of those responsible.

PPI was often sold alongside loans to cover repayments if borrowers fell ill or lost their jobs. As banks recognised how profitable the product was, they began to push sales even though they were of questionable value for many customers. Concerns grew in 2008 after the consumers group Which? reported that one in three PPI customers had bought “worthless” insurance.

In April last year, the industry lost a case in the High Court to stop customers demanding compensation. Weeks later, Lloyds announced that it would set aside £3.2 billion for likely payouts. Other banks have followed suit, taking the total provision to about £6 billion.

The FSA has since urged banks to claw back bonuses paid out to those who were in charge when the loan insurance was sold. Until now, no bank has done so.

Other than Mr Daniels, the Lloyds directors who will lose a quarter of their 2010 bonus awards are Tim Tookey, the outgoing finance director, Helen Weir, the former head of the retail bank, Truett Tate, the head of Lloyds’ corporate and investment bank who retires this month, and Carol Sergeant, Lloyds’ former head of risk.

Mr Tookey will forgo £235,000 of his £942,000 bonus, Mr Tate £260,000 of his £1.05 million award, Ms Weir £218,000 of her £875,000 bonus. Mr Daniels will lose at least £360,000 of his £1.45 million award. Ms Sergeant’s pay was not disclosed because she was on the executive committee rather than the board, though she is also thought to have had to hand back about £100,000. Since leaving Lloyds last year, she has been made chairman of the Government’s steering group into simple financial products.

An announcement is expected soon, although it may simply be inserted as a clause in the annual report next month.

The bank is able to “claw back” the bonuses, made in shares, because the award was released over three years, so future payments will not now be made.

Mr Daniels, who recently joined the specialist advisory firm StormHarbour, will be made to lose “at least” 25 per cent of his 2010 award. The decision is believed to have been taken by Antonio Horta-Osorio, the new chief executive who has just returned from two months off after suffering from stress and insomnia.
Sources said the former directors were furious with the decision, because they believe they operated within the rules of the time. Some of the directors feel the adjustments are designed to detract from this week’s dire results.

The decision could pave the way for clawbacks at rival banks. Royal Bank of Scotland, which is 83 per cent owned by the taxpayer, was the second largest player in the PPI market behind Lloyds.

Barclays, RBS and the other banks said they would reflect the cost of the PPI scandal in bonuses to be awarded for 2011. Lloyds is also likely to award reduced bonuses for 2011, on top of the clawbacks for 2010, to take into account the bank’s losses. Lloyds, which is 41 per cent state owned, is expected to announce a near-£4 billion loss this Friday as a result of the scandal, while RBS is forecast to post a loss of up to £1 billion.

Very few banks across the world have exercised any bonus clawbacks. However, UBS, the Swiss bank, is clawing back as much as half of the bonuses for 2010.

Nadhim Zahawi, a Tory MP who has campaigned for banking reform, said other bankers should face clawbacks.

“For too long it has appeared to the public that executive jobs at big banks are a one-way bet, no matter what you do you get a huge reward,” he said. “That has to change.”

Lloyds declined to comment last night.



Lloyds Bank strips five directors of more than £1 million in bonuses - Telegraph

Also reported by the BBC:
BBC News - Lloyds takes back bonuses from 10 executives

[EXC]

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

Lloyds Bank strips five directors of more than £1 million in bonuses

Lloyds Banking Group is to strip five directors of more than £1 million in bonuses as a penalty for a financial scandal that cost the taxpayer-backed bank £3.2 billion last year.


It will be the first time a British bank has exercised a “clawback” option on executive pay packages since the financial crisis and will lead to calls for similar moves at other lenders, including the Royal Bank of Scotland.

The Daily Telegraph has learned that Lloyds is taking back a bonus from senior bankers over their role in the mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI).

Eric Daniels, Lloyds’ former chief executive, will lose at least £360,000 of his 2010 bonus. Four other current and former directors will each have to forgo about £250,000.

The move comes after weeks of pressure from politicians and consumer groups for the banking sector to answer concerns that some bonus awards do not match individual performances.

The Financial Services Authority has also called for Britain’s banks to reflect one of the worst customer mis-selling scandals in recent memory in the pay packages of those responsible.

PPI was often sold alongside loans to cover repayments if borrowers fell ill or lost their jobs. As banks recognised how profitable the product was, they began to push sales even though they were of questionable value for many customers. Concerns grew in 2008 after the consumers group Which? reported that one in three PPI customers had bought “worthless” insurance.

In April last year, the industry lost a case in the High Court to stop customers demanding compensation. Weeks later, Lloyds announced that it would set aside £3.2 billion for likely payouts. Other banks have followed suit, taking the total provision to about £6 billion.

The FSA has since urged banks to claw back bonuses paid out to those who were in charge when the loan insurance was sold. Until now, no bank has done so.

Other than Mr Daniels, the Lloyds directors who will lose a quarter of their 2010 bonus awards are Tim Tookey, the outgoing finance director, Helen Weir, the former head of the retail bank, Truett Tate, the head of Lloyds’ corporate and investment bank who retires this month, and Carol Sergeant, Lloyds’ former head of risk.

Mr Tookey will forgo £235,000 of his £942,000 bonus, Mr Tate £260,000 of his £1.05 million award, Ms Weir £218,000 of her £875,000 bonus. Mr Daniels will lose at least £360,000 of his £1.45 million award. Ms Sergeant’s pay was not disclosed because she was on the executive committee rather than the board, though she is also thought to have had to hand back about £100,000. Since leaving Lloyds last year, she has been made chairman of the Government’s steering group into simple financial products.

An announcement is expected soon, although it may simply be inserted as a clause in the annual report next month.

The bank is able to “claw back” the bonuses, made in shares, because the award was released over three years, so future payments will not now be made.

Mr Daniels, who recently joined the specialist advisory firm StormHarbour, will be made to lose “at least” 25 per cent of his 2010 award. The decision is believed to have been taken by Antonio Horta-Osorio, the new chief executive who has just returned from two months off after suffering from stress and insomnia.
Sources said the former directors were furious with the decision, because they believe they operated within the rules of the time. Some of the directors feel the adjustments are designed to detract from this week’s dire results.

The decision could pave the way for clawbacks at rival banks. Royal Bank of Scotland, which is 83 per cent owned by the taxpayer, was the second largest player in the PPI market behind Lloyds.

Barclays, RBS and the other banks said they would reflect the cost of the PPI scandal in bonuses to be awarded for 2011. Lloyds is also likely to award reduced bonuses for 2011, on top of the clawbacks for 2010, to take into account the bank’s losses. Lloyds, which is 41 per cent state owned, is expected to announce a near-£4 billion loss this Friday as a result of the scandal, while RBS is forecast to post a loss of up to £1 billion.

Very few banks across the world have exercised any bonus clawbacks. However, UBS, the Swiss bank, is clawing back as much as half of the bonuses for 2010.

Nadhim Zahawi, a Tory MP who has campaigned for banking reform, said other bankers should face clawbacks.

“For too long it has appeared to the public that executive jobs at big banks are a one-way bet, no matter what you do you get a huge reward,” he said. “That has to change.”

Lloyds declined to comment last night.



Lloyds Bank strips five directors of more than £1 million in bonuses - Telegraph

[EXC]

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

Personally, I have given up hope of ever being contacted by any of the firms who mis-sold to me PPI.
And yes, formal complaints were lodged long ago and well documented.

I have colleagues who are in the same position.

You wouldn't be contacted if you'd already complained. It works like a car recall - no point in calling a car in for inspection if it's already been inspected.

[Angry Cat]

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

Answers on a postcard as to who the 4 may be?

For sure RBS, MBNA, Capital One and the now Barclay's owned EGG are not on that list!

IMHO, many vulnerable consumers have been despicably treated by firms who refused to deal with their valid PPI complaints. Preferring rather to have sold the problems on to DCA debt buying firms who will not deal with PPI complaints. But continue to pursue/harass the individuals for money that is not owed. Or, the value of the debt is incorrect.

The original creditor will have retained the PPI complaints but prefer to hide in the long grass, as the do not wish to repay the monies.

These firms failed to treat their customers fairly in the first instance and continue to treat them unfairly...we await with craned neck to be contacted.

[EXC]

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

As of September last year there were 4 firms that had either initiated customer contact exercises or had an intention to. So I would say that this would represent the thin edge of the wedge.

Freedom of Information: Right to know request

Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), for the following information.

“1).. Given that the Judicial Review proceedings effectively delayed firms' implementation of the PS 10/12, what is the revised implementation date for the Root Cause Analysis requirements?
2) As priority has been given to the fair handling complaints, is there a separate, later implementation date for Root Cause Analysis for the firms that were granted an extension to dealing with complaints beyond the standard 8 week period.
3) What is the revised time table for the monitoring of the Root Cause Analysis requirements?
4) To date how many firms’ if any, have either initiated customer contact exercises under the Root Cause Analysis requirements of PS 10/12 (as distinct from past business reviews already agreed) or have indicated an intention to do so. Please note
I am not asking for any firm specific data.”

Your request has now been considered. I can confirm that we hold the information you have requested which is enclosed.

For point 1 of your request, firstly we would clarify that the requirement for firms to undertake Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is not new. It has been a requirement under DISP 1.3.3R since the FSA began regulating general insurance in 2005. DISP 1.3.3R requires a firm to put in place appropriate controls and take reasonable steps to ensure that in handling complaints it identifies any recurring or systemic problems, for example by analysing causes of individual complaints to identify underlying root causes common to types of complaints; considering whether such root causes may affect other processes or products; and where reasonable to do so, take action to correct such root causes.
Policy Statement (PS) 10/12 added to the above long established requirement by including a new DISP Appendix 3 which contains:

a) guidance on what a firm might need to consider in the PPI context when undertaking RCA; and
b) further guidance setting out particular factors which a firm should consider when determining whether it ought to act in respect of the position of those people that had not complained but nonetheless might have been adversely affected by systemic problem(s) identified in its sales practices relating to PPI, such as the scope and severity of the detriment that might have arisen, and whether it is fair and reasonable for the firm to undertake a proactive remediation exercise.

The DISP Appendix 3 guidance (that came into force on 1 December 2010) shows that it is each firm's own responsibility to deliver fair outcomes and treat customers fairly in accordance with Principle 6 (to the extent that it applies). The responsibility for conducting RCA and identifying any appropriate course of own-initiative action therefore rests with each regulated firm.

In view of the delay caused by the Judicial Review proceedings, we have decided to begin monitoring firms’ compliance with our RCA requirements, in early 2012.
In PS 10/12 at page 30 we ask that firms retain records of their RCA of PPI sales problems and failings, their considerations and decisions about whether and what own initiative actions are required as a result, the scope, nature and results of the actions taken, including any dealings with individual consumers included in the scope of the firm's own initiative actions. We will draw on these records in the course of our monitoring work.

For point 2 of your request there is not a separate, later implementation date for RCA for the firms that were granted an extension to deal with complaints beyond the standard 8 week period.

For point 3 of your request, as mentioned above, we intend to begin monitoring firms’ compliance with our RCA requirements, from early 2012.

For point 4 of your request, based on the recorded information that we hold, the FSA is aware of 4 firms who have either (i) initiated customer contact exercises or (ii) indicated an intention to do so. However, please note that the FSA has not, at this stage, actively been seeking or verifying information on this aspect of firms’ activities, given that we intend to monitor firms’ compliance with our RCA requirements, from early 2012. Therefore this figure cannot be considered an accurate total of the number of firms who have initiated customer contact exercises in line with our guidance set out in PS 10/12 or intend to do so.

If you have any queries then please contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Emma Binning | Operation Services | Information Access |
Financial Services Authority
25 The North Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5HS

[Angry Cat]

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

Personally, I have given up hope of ever being contacted by any of the firms who mis-sold to me PPI.
And yes, formal complaints were lodged long ago and well documented.

I have colleagues who are in the same position.

[EXC]

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

It might help if they understood the FSA guidance on RCA - or is it just me ?

They're right but they haven't expressed it very well. Banks are not required to revisit the merits of individual past complaints themselves but to identify the areas they came from in order to justify a root cause analysis of tranches of sales.

I must say that although Charter UK have an agenda in flogging remediation systems to banks (hence the doom & gloom slant) it's a bit rich to suggest that the FSA haven't given them enough time. They appear to have forgotten that the requirements of the Policy Statement were published way back in August 2010 and that the implementation of them was delayed because of the BBA's failed legal objections to them.

[Bill-K]

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

Great. Just great. They screw us so badly that THEY can't cope with the backlash, poor wee things. So they get to cop out - again - and presumably the already-screwed taxpayer has to bail them out -again. And presumably another bunch of execs start arm-wrestling over their bonuses for either being one-click down from criminal - or three-clicks up from incompetent.

And another thing...

The FSA's guidance on 'root cause analysis' currently obligates firms to look at all previous PPI complaints they've received in order to identify any systematic failings in their sales procedures and complaints handling. At this stage, any consumers that may have been affected by these failings will need to be contacted and offered redress for any losses – even if they haven't actually complained.

It might help if they understood the FSA guidance on RCA - or is it just me ?

[EXC]

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

Charter UK has warned that UK banks and other financial services organisations will be unable to achieve the PPI remediation guidelines that have been issued by the FSA.

Payment protection insurance (PPI) compensation has already been a serious financial problem for firms in the sector, which collectively have paid out over £1 billion in pay-outs over the past year. The main problem is that the FSA has completely underestimated the processes and resources that banks and other financial services organisations will need to implement in order to comply with the FSA's rigid deadlines for remediating and managing existing PPI complaints. If the FSA decides to stick doggedly to the guidelines in their current form, the industry is going to fail to meet the requirements.

Charter UK CEO Paul Clark says,"Most banks and other financial services organisations are in the midst of 'pilot' PPI remediation projects in order to evaluate the scale of the task facing them. Early reports from the industry suggest that the cost of implementing these remediation programmes is likely to extend far beyond the budget and available resources that has been set aside to handle the compensations themselves. In addition, the three-to-eight week window that the FSA has allocated to resolve a complaint is simply not achievable.

For these reasons, we believe that the FSA guidelines in their current format are impossible for the industry to achieve, and need to be overhauled. Those firms that have invested in dedicated complaints handling technology solutions are in a much better position to cope than those relying on legacy systems and processes – but we are going to see some epic failures across the industry if the guidelines are maintained in their current state."

The FSA's guidance on 'root cause analysis' currently obligates firms to look at all previous PPI complaints they've received in order to identify any systematic failings in their sales procedures and complaints handling. At this stage, any consumers that may have been affected by these failings will need to be contacted and offered redress for any losses – even if they haven't actually complained.

Huge numbers of PPI claims are already overwhelming the banks and other financial companies, with a growing number of frustrated customers now taking their cases to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). As a result, PPI complaints currently make up more than half of the FOS's total workload.

Charter UK is implementing its PPI remediation solution in numerous financial firms to improve the efficiency of managing PPI complaints.

FSA's guidelines on PPI remediation unachievable says Charter UK

[MBD23]

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

Claims firms 'get £12m PPI payouts'
(UKPA) – 7 hours ago
More than £12 million due to consumers under a safety net for people who have been mis-sold payment protection insurance (PPI) will end up with claims management firms in the next year, it has been claimed.
A record 16,500 complaints about PPI mis-sold by firms that have since gone bust are set to be made in 2012/13, a rise from around 12,000 in the current year, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) said.
The consumer safety net, which is funded by levies imposed on the banks, is concerned that some £12 million of consumers' payouts in 2012/13 could end up going to claims management companies, despite people being just as likely to make a successful claim when they apply themselves.
More than three quarters of people have been using claims management companies to apply for compensation, which typically take 25% of the average payout of £4,534. If this trend continues, potential claimants could pay more than £12.6 million to these firms in 2012/13, taking into account around 10% of PPI claims which are rejected, the FSCS said.
It has projected it will pay out £70 million in 2012/13, almost as much as the £77.5 million paid out by the FSCS over PPI claims between 2008 and 2011.
Recent research by the FSCS, which pays compensation when companies are unable to, found that customers are just as likely as claims management firms to be successful in making an application to them.
Mark Neale, chief executive of the FSCS, said: "The significant uplift in PPI claims shows no sign of slowing down. The amount consumers pay to claims management companies for handling their case is sizeable.
"Claims management companies take a significant part of the possible pay-out and are no more likely to make a successful claim than consumers can on their own. People can save thousands by submitting their claims directly to the FSCS, rather than through a third party.
"While it may seem reassuring to have someone else do the paperwork, consumers should not be daunted by the process of making a claim. Claiming compensation from the FSCS is free and simple. If consumers have any concerns there is always someone on hand to help."
PPI complaints take up the biggest chunk of claims dealt with by the scheme, accounting for around 30% of the £237.8 million expected to be paid out in the next year.

[EXC]

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

From today's FT:



PPI refunds promise to deliver stimulus

Britain’s economy is about to get a dose of fiscal stimulus equivalent to a tax cut of as much as £10bn over the next few years, economists say.

The unplanned stimulus arises from refunds of payment protection insurance, which have risen sharply each month since August.

Then, banks and brokers that sold PPI to an estimated 16.1m people agreed to abandon legal efforts to overturn an order for restitution.

PPI customers paid premiums totalling £17bn between 2005 and 2010, according to the Financial Services Authority.

Nearly £1.5bn was paid out in the first 11 months of 2011 and payments rose sharply in the last few months of the year, the FSA has said.

A surge of cash into the hands of households could provide a form of economic stimulus that would be the equivalent of a temporary tax cut, economists said.

“It is a boost to income,” said Simon Kirby, UK economist at the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, an academic research body.

Analysts forecast that the original estimates of the size of pay-outs may have been too modest.

In August 2010 the FSA estimated that the amount to be refunded to customers who bought PPI at the point they took out either personal loans or mortgages would total £4.5bn and that the average pay-out per customer would be £1,500.

But Chris Manners, banking analyst at Morgan Stanley, noted that banks have already taken write-offs of between £5bn and £6bn in respect of PPI claims, although some of that may reflect the administrative costs of complaints handling.

Moreover, he notes, average pay-out per customer is larger than the FSA estimated. In the four weeks to August 11 2011, the average pay-out was £2,750.

Mr Manners noted that the sum eventually to be refunded may be as high as £10bn or more. When Lloyds Bank took a £3.2bn charge to reflect its PPI costs, analysts believed it represented about a third of policies sold.

Not only must banks respond to complaints from those who bought the policies, they must also conduct a “root cause” analysis of their past sales to find any customers who were mis-sold but are not aware of it.

Based on estimates from agencies whose business it is to aid consumers seeking refunds, the number of mis-sold policies may be as high as 20m.

“This is a significant chunk of the population,” Mr Manners said, noting that estimates by the claims agencies are to date not far off actual refunds.

Niesr estimates, for example, that if the government opted to step up spending on infrastructure – a type of expenditure that has a bigger effect on the economy than tax cuts and which the institute is urging government to consider – it could limit the effects of recession.

Investment of 1 per cent of gross domestic product, equal to about £15bn, might be able to cut unemployment by about 100,000 *workers.

The institute’s Mr Kirby said that refunds were more likely to produce an effect similar to that of a tax cut but that if they were concentrated in the hands of credit-strapped households – who, by definition, bought more of the insurance than any other social group – the impact could be greater than usual.

If the sum is “in the low billions of pounds”, Mr Kirby said, it is probably as effective as a tax cut, at a time when many economists, including those at Niesr, are forecasting that the UK economy is likely to contract – or at best, grow at a very sluggish pace – over the coming year.

“It’s temporary, it’s timely and it is to some extent targeted,” Mr Kirby said.

[di30]

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

Hi Received a letter today from Barclaycard with an offer of goodwill(a very low offer) should I take this as I have no proof to give them (I have had this card since the late 80s)

Hiya

First of all well done on your offer.

I know it can be a difficult one if you've not proof of the paperwork, but did they send you a detailed breakdown and go back all the way from when you first taken out the account? The statement of breakdown should hopefully provide all details of how they calculated it, so if they did not send you one, request for this, as you do have the right.

Good luck.