PPI forum

[MrShed]

Hi all,

 

Very quick question/suggestion. Why isnt the PPI forum part of the Bank Action Group section? Seems considerably more relevant there than in the consumer bit - and it may help get more PPI answers, I personally had real difficulty getting any PPI advice on my query sometime ago, to the point where I gave in. I notice other PPI threads go totally missed also.

 

Cheers!

[Bookworm]

I'd guess that's because PPI is not a bank issue? PPI gets applied to all products, and mis-selling is a consumer issue, not a banking one.

 

(That's my take on it, not that I know what goes on in the Master's head, you understand!!! )

[MrShed]

How so? Its primarily applied to loans and credit cards, which if not banks themselves are certainly usually supplied by financial institutions....

[Bookworm]

Store cards, any type of credit purchase, mortgages, etc... But they are an insurance policy pushed by the retailer, so even though the financial institution benefits, the mis-selling aspect is usually down to the retailer (look at Land of Leather's big fine, they got fined, not Creation Finance!)

 

I think if we were to move it to the bank side, we'd end up with even more queries of the "well, mine was through Debenhams/M&S/Dreams beds etc, can I reclaim mine?" style.

 

Again, JMO, the powers that be could well disagree with me, wouldn't be the first time, lol.

[MrShed]

Fair point well made BW.

 

In that case, I will move onto my second suggestion.....can we try and maybe push for some more PPI support/expertise? My experience of the PPI section is an undervisited area with a distinct lack of support for queries.....

[Bookworm]

We try, we try, but I think people lack confidence, which is a shame, as far as I am concerned, PPI issues are in the main fairly easy to handle, since there are well defined areas under which mis-selling has occurred, (self-employed, PMH, that kind of stuff) as well as the odd grey one (doctored documents etc...).

 

But point taken, I shall draw the PPI forum languishing in its dire corner to the team's attention and see if it can get a bit more lavishing. ;-)

[MrShed]

Absolutely - and it was a shame perhaps, that PPI was not taken up a bit more strongly during the OFT test case "deadtime".

 

My suggestion(for what its worth!) is perhaps the appointment of a couple of mods/site helpers who have shown they know the PPI stuff? Not telling you's how to do your jobs btw, just thinking aloud

[BankFodder]

Yes, I don't understand why PPI doesn't seem to be more prominent. On the other hand, in the consumer part of this forum, it has almost the highest number of threads and is even higher ranking in the number of accesses so it is actually doing pretty well.

 

We don't appoint mods in that way. no one gets paid and it is difficult to impose duties or responsibilities on people in any formal way. It would certainly be nice to get some mods who are especially into PPI in the same way that we do have some who are very into debt.

 

I think that the PPI forum is probably in a logical position but you are right that it would be good to raise the profile of PPI claims possibilities. What we need is for people to trumpet their successes so that others get the fever.

To a great extent this forum is demand driven. Let's keep this discussion open.

[ReasonableRon]

The problem with PPI reclaiming, compared to bank charge reclaiming, is that it doesn't rely on a single point of law to make the whole thing 'illegal'. In fact there is no 'law' as such that applies to PPI mis-selling, only a set of regulations, an overwhelmed Ombudsman and a load of negative media coverage fuelling the assumption that every PPI policy in existence must have been mis-sold.

 

Each case has its own unique set of circumstances, and the impression I get is that this is lost on most of the contributors to that forum. For example, when someone reports a 'success' with XYZ bank it is easy for people to assume that XYZ Bank are paying out on PPI reclaims, when in fact they may only be responding to a particular case where they agree they were in the wrong at the time of sale.

 

The other problem is that it is far easier for reclaimers to lose in court than with bank charges, and I doubt that site helpers would like to have a set of unrecoverable court fees on their consience, after recommending court action.

 

This would I imagine make the job of finding expert volunteers rather difficult, but would be interested in other opinions.

[MrShed]

Good post, and some good points.

 

The only point I would disagree with is regarding reclaimers being far easier to lose in court. Should it be properly prepared, there is no reason for this to be the case, as if they had been properly prepared and assisted, then the case wouldnt even go to court if this outcome was likely.

 

Misselling takes many forms. In my case, I had been sold it when I was not working, and in fact they could never prove that I had taken it out. I agree that each case is on its own merits, but certain cases of misselling are as clear as black and white(for example people who are unemployed etc), and these cases can broadly be treated the same.

[TANZARELLI]

The FOS will also only look at complaints against loan providers that were previously members of GISC prior to becoming regulated by the FSA in Jan 2005 also.

 

An example of this is Welcome Financial Services. The were members of GISC from around July 2004 and then went on to become regulated by the FSA in Jan 2005. Prior to July 2004 they were not members of GISC. I had two loans whith them which I was mis-sold PPI on both and the FOS wont touch the first one but as the second was Sept 2004 they are now looking at this one.

[ReasonableRon]

Good post, and some good points.

 

The only point I would disagree with is regarding reclaimers being far easier to lose in court. Should it be properly prepared, there is no reason for this to be the case, as if they had been properly prepared and assisted, then the case wouldnt even go to court if this outcome was likely.

 

I think the very fact that banks etc are prepared to turn up in court and defend compared to bank charges where they wouldn't go near the courtroom automatically means that there is a far greater chance of losing. Judges are also often known for simply following the paper trail and expecting people to be bound by what they sign for.

 

Misselling takes many forms. In my case, I had been sold it when I was not working, and in fact they could never prove that I had taken it out. I agree that each case is on its own merits, but certain cases of misselling are as clear as black and white(for example people who are unemployed etc), and these cases can broadly be treated the same.

 

I couldn't agree more. Yours appears to have been a clear case and completely indefensible.

 

Unfortunately as well as the black and white cases there are 'grey area' cases where valid arguments may exist from both sides. I am just trying to see the bigger picture.

 

I personally don't regard PPI as a bad thing - I've got it myself on my mortgage - so I am not necessarily following the herd on this one, being happy to base my judgement on my own experiences.

 

Not that i am defending some of the mis-selling practices that have obviously happened, you understand, just not accepting that this applies every single time and with all lenders.

[Bookworm]

I don't think it's a question of "following the herd", which I find quite an offensive comment.

 

It's not a case of "all PPI is bad, yah boo sucks" either. The forum is about PPI mis-selling, and/or poor practices, and I don't think I have seen anyone saying "oh, I claimed 3 times on my PPI, and now I also want my money back" (although I have seen one person dangerously close to this, if we understood them correctly! ).

 

Having said that, since this a consumer rights forum, I doubt we're going to see many happy PPIers logging on just to say how pleased they were with theirs, and no, they don't need any assistance, thanks.

[ReasonableRon]

I don't think it's a question of "following the herd", which I find quite an offensive comment.

 

No offense intended - I was referring more to the way in which the media can manipulate puplic opinion, of which there have been many examples over the years.

 

It's not a case of "all PPI is bad, yah boo sucks" either. The forum is about PPI mis-selling, and/or poor practices, and I don't think I have seen anyone saying "oh, I claimed 3 times on my PPI, and now I also want my money back" (although I have seen one person dangerously close to this, if we understood them correctly! ).

 

I've already made it clear that I have no issue with reclaiming in the black and white cases such as the one described above, and as such this forum is a valuable resource of information for those involved. Some of the activities that appear to have been going on are indefensible and should be resolved.

 

Having said that, since this a consumer rights forum, I doubt we're going to see many happy PPIers logging on just to say how pleased they were with theirs, and no, they don't need any assistance, thanks.

 

No, I guess we won't, which is why we do not see any balance to this ongoing debate about PPI.

 

I remember reading a government commissioned report into consumer overindebtedness from only a couple of years ago and one of the points raised was that MORE people need to take out PPI to cover them in times of hardship . The conservative gocernment in the late 80's early 90's also made it clear that they expected people to make there own financial provisions for the unexpected, and not rely on the state to bail them out. Now another government department (The Competition Commission) is considering outlawing the sale of policies at the same time as the related loan.

 

I must admit that I find the whole thing fascinating. Perhaps I need to get out more

[MrShed]

The one thing I would take umbrage with above RR is that you seem to imply that if the case is not "black and white" then it is either not worth pursuing, or worth helping with....this is clearly wrong.

[ReasonableRon]

The one thing I would take umbrage with above RR is that you seem to imply that if the case is not "black and white" then it is either not worth pursuing, or worth helping with....this is clearly wrong.

Oh dear - I am clearly not making my point very well.

 

The original context of this thread was about the difficulty in providing PPI advice. My point was not about that non 'black and white' cases are not worth persuing, but that they must be difficult to help with.

[MrShed]

To be honest, I think that the only none black and white bit(as everything else I can think of offhand is pretty much black and white) is the "forced selling" bit. Clearly in this situation only the claimant and the defendant(sometimes) can know how forced the sale was...

[FANTASY CHARGES]

interesting to read the comments on this thread