Rip-off insurance: Get your share of £200m compensation

Cliff D'Arcy
by Lovemoney Staff Cliff D'Arcy on 01 October 2009  |  Comments 9 comments

The financial watchdog is laying into lenders for unfairly rejecting complaints about payment protection. Almost £200 million could be handed back...

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has ordered a number of leading lenders to improve their handling of complaints into payment protection insurance (PPI). The City watchdog has been forced to act because of the number of complaints which have been rejected by lenders, only for the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to rule in favour of policyholders.

The worst insurance of all

Payment protection insurance provides cover against accident, sickness and unemployment, and is sold alongside credit agreements such as credit cards, personal loans, mortgages and so on. Although PPI can provide valuable cover, the market has been tarnished by anti-competitive behaviour, profiteering and widespread mis-selling by lenders.

Having worked in the PPI market throughout the Nineties, I've first-hand experience of this dreadful insurance. Indeed, at the height of the credit boom, I reckon that lenders and insurers pocketed a profit of £4 billion a year by hard-selling PPI to a captive audience. Today, there may be 20 million PPI policies in force -- most of which provide inferior cover at sky-high prices.

From velvet glove to iron fist

As you've probably guessed, PPI is one of my pet hates. Since I became a financial writer in 2003, I've criticised it more than 600 times in print. Alas, until 2005, general insurance policies such as PPI were voluntarily supervised by a worthless, self-regulated industry body known as the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC).

Fortunately, on 14 January 2005, the Financial Services Authority took over supervision of general insurance, sending GISC to its grave. In theory, this should have led to instant improvements in the promotion and selling of PPI and other policies, but the FSA initially was slow to act.

After a couple of years, the FSA finally reacted to repeated warnings about widespread problems within the PPI industry and began fining the worst offenders. To date, the FSA has fined 22 firms which mis-sold PPI a total of £11.8 million. Of course, this is just a drop in the ocean when compared to the billions firms banked from dishonestly selling PPI, but it's better than nothing.

The FSA's latest crackdown

By 29 May of this year, the FSA had forced providers to stop selling of the worst kind of PPI -- single-premium policies linked to personal loans -- at the point of sale. At a stroke, this cleaned up the worst area of the market, leaving the FSA free to tackle the PPI sold alongside mortgages, secured loans and credit cards.

Nevertheless, in the first half of this year, the Financial Ombudsman Service received more complaints about PPI than any other financial product -- 750 a week, on average. In its latest report, the FOS revealed that it rules in favour of policyholders in four out of five PPI complaints (80%) referred to it.

This staggeringly high reversal rate suggests that problems with PPI are not being properly addressed by lenders' customer-service teams. In addition, the FSA revealed that, on average, PPI sellers reject around three in five PPI complaints (60%), but some firms reject 98% or 99% of complaints. After rejection, one in six complaints (16%) reaches the FOS, over 80% of which are overturned in the consumer's favour.

Yesterday, the FSA ordered the ten or so firms responsible for two-fifths (40%) of loan PPI sales to review previous sales since 1 July 2007 for evidence of mis-selling. Its targets include big banks such as Barclays, Lloyds TSB and RBS.

If big problems are found at these firms, then the mis-selling review will be extended right back to January 2005, when the FSA took general insurance under its wings. The watchdog has also ordered a review of all PPI complaints rejected since 14 January 2005, which is great news for peeved policyholders.

All PPI policyholders found to have been treated unfairly must be compensated by the seller. The FSA reckons that 185,000 previously rejected PPI complaints will be re-opened, leading to compensation of up to £195 million being awarded to policyholders. In addition, the FSA will introduce new guidance by the end of the year in order to ensure that future PPI complaints are handled properly and fairly.

Top marks to the FSA

Given the vast profits made from the sale of PPI (typically, 80%+ of the premium), it's no wonder that lenders are dragging their feet. Thus, despite investigations and enforcement action by the Office of Fair Trading, Competition Commission and the Financial Services Authority, lenders still don't treat PPI customers fairly and consistently. Perhaps a few £100-million fines would put their houses in order?

This latest step by the FSA will help to clear up PPI problems from 2005 onwards, which is a huge leap forward. So, it's full marks to the FSA for doing its job by backing consumers over banks. At last, after seven years of waging a personal war against PPI, I'm starting to believe that this battle can be won!

In the meantime, if you've bought a loan PPI policy since 1 July 2007, look out for a letter from your lender with instructions on how to make a mis-selling claim. For some customers, the potential compensation could add up to thousands of pounds...

More: Get quality quotes for car insurance and home insurance | Another rip-off insurance to avoid | Who needs life insurance?

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (9)

  • enoryt010
    Love rating 0
    enoryt010 said

    Is that all FSA registered companies that have received complaints since 207, even if they relate to policies sold since 2005 - provided the business was registered with the FSA at that time?

    Report on 02 October 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Debtfix
    Love rating 5
    Debtfix said

    I agree that PPI is a bare faced rip-off. I work with people who are in debt. In some cases the debt is reinforced by sickness or long term health [rpblems and the PPI comes up short.

    One of my cases concerns a young man who was injured in a fall and then it was discovered that a loan he had with Nat West was only covered for half the term of the loan by the PPI. Aquick calculation showed that the cost of the PPI exactly equalled payments for the term covered. So effectively he did not get insurance but the premium he paid was returned to him as payments against the loan. To my mind that is not insurance it is planning ahead! The problem we face is that the loan after the "insurance" finishes has several years to run.

    The second case involves Barclays Bank. A 62 y o man disabled and virtually house bound took a loan out with PPI. The PPI has paid the loan for 12 months, as sickness benefit. However he has a heart condition which should qualify him for the critical illness provisions of the policy but they refused to consider this despite a doctor's letter and access to his medical records. I cannot imagine this person ever being fit for work so the PPI should kick in permanently and dispose of the loan altogether as it promises under the critical illness provision.

    Weasel words from weasel people.

    Report on 02 October 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Ofolaller
    Love rating 0
    Ofolaller said

    I was sold PPI when I applied for and received a credit card at my bank at the end of 2007. It seemed a good idea when I was told about it, as I am self-employed. But I understand that if I were to make a claim, it would be rejected on the basis of my being self-employed. I might be wrong about this. But if I'm right, does this mean that I was missold and have been paying money for nothing each month? My bank knew that I was self-employed when I made the application, which was done in person with an official at the bank.

    Report on 02 October 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • GranthamGordon
    Love rating 0
    GranthamGordon said

    First Plus are renowned for 'front stacking'their PPI and in most circumstances say the loan application will fail if NOT taken out! I have been in a fight with them now for some weeks to remove the PPI from the loan so I can pay it off in full, they are wanting an EXTRA £17,000. When you have a complaint they say it will take upto 9 weeks for them to investigate and report back with ...THEIR outcome. MY advise is stay well away from First Plus and warn others. 

    Report on 02 October 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • elizabeth butt
    Love rating 0
    elizabeth butt said

    Good article, Cliff. I have a friend who I believe was definitely mis-sold PPI and we are trying to get Lloyds to respond on this. A bit like Ofolaller, she was sold unemployment insurance when she was already unemployed! - what chance is there ever of her receiving a payout one wonders!

    However, she took out her insurance in 2003. So is her situation not covered?

    Report on 02 October 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • kitwedigger
    Love rating 4
    kitwedigger said

    I received a letter only today from the FSA which refers to this in relation to my brother. We had an unsatisfactory offer from Lloyds offering to repay some of the premiums and ignoring all the ongoing consequences of going into offerdraft and etc and this has been going on for years with the FSA fobbing us off. Now they've fobbed us off once again and said it's nowt to do with them. Get back to LLoyds and then on to The Ombdsman, who in our experience keep the case going on for years, change case officers, loose the plot, and then close the case with a refusal to act.

    Report on 03 October 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • albear
    Love rating 0
    albear said

    A young lady known to me  foolishly took a loan from HSBC in 2003 when she was 18 to set up home as a single mother. She was 'obliged' to take out a PPI paid in a lump sum - the 5 year cost being added to the loan and on which she was charged the same high interest rate over the 5 years. As she only worked part time her income would actually have increased if she had ceased work (from state benefits) AND I've never heard of anyone having to pay 5 years worth of insurance in advance. An outrageous case of misselling. There seems to be no remedy for her. Is that the case ? Appreciate any comments as this situation really riles me. 

    Report on 20 October 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • eLJay
    Love rating 77
    eLJay said

    Hmmm but what about the likes of Morgan Stanley who don't seem to technically exist anymore or have sold off there credit card customers to Barclays.

    When I got a new job I cancelled my PPI with Morgan Stanley as when I called to try and use it they simply told me to ring the provider (I paid them and there was no mention of this on applying for it).

    In fact when I needed it the only lot that did anything were Virgin Money who put the PPI in place for me in seconds, otherwise PPI is a complete con and money you may as well use to pay off the balance instead.

    Report on 08 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • eLJay
    Love rating 77
    eLJay said

    And what about those who didn't get around to complaining to the FSA under the usual 3 strikes and then you can complain about it mess, if your broke you are sometimes very busy.

    Report on 08 February 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (2.98% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee reduced from 3.9% to 2.98% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 26Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 26 months (2.47% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee reduced from 3.5% to 2.47% (T&Cs apply)

NatWest Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV4