PPI Claims help

[[TW]Fox]

That argument is wholly counter-productive.

It is only guaranteed to not have been mis-sold if it was something you intentionally chose, and therefore were aware of.

Sorry, but I disagree.

The PPI thing has spiralled out of control and is now costing a small fortune. Short termists might think this is great because it serves the banks right but it's fairly obvious who picks up the tab in the long term - us general public. It has now cost the industry so much money the only result can be less competitive products and lower interest rates.

Some PPI background. PPI is a product that was very profitable for banks. As a result, banks incentivised staff to sell PPI to customers. There was no standard inclusion of PPI on loans and credit cards. It was always an optional product and indeed the credit agreement required a signature accepting the PPI. It couldn't be automatically added.

HOWEVER...

In order to get the commission, some staff at banks intentionally mis-sold PPI. Often by claiming that the loan wouldn't be accepted unless PPI was taken out, or offering it to people who would never be eligible to claim. This is terrible practice and everyone who was misled in this way deserves not only to receive a full refund of premiums they paid but also compensation in the form of interest. I absolutely support people making claims against banks if they were treated in this way. It is fair and just that they should receive the money back. The mis-selling was convincing people to take it under false pretences and therefore sign for it.

There were, however, many, many people - infact the vast majority of people who had a PPI product - who were not mis-sold PPI. They opted to take PPI because they felt the benefits the product offered were worth the price you paid for it (They never were, it was a crap product from the start but there is no law against selling rubbishy products and neither should there be).

This is where the problem arises. The banks have no evidence as to whether a PPI policy was mis-sold or not. They can't prove what was or wasn't said by the staff member who sold the product all those years ago. Therefore it becomes impossible to separate the genuinely mis-sold people from those who quite happily elected to take PPI or who agreed that it was a good idea and wanted it and who are now subsequently claiming they didn't in order to benefit from a claim.

The guy who likened it to 'whippy-compo' is spot on - the principle is the same. It is impossible to separate genuinely injured people from people just claiming 'compo innit' with no injuries in exactly the same way that its impossible to separate genuine PPI claimants from those who agreed to PPI, didn't need to claim on it and now think it's payday.

Most of these people who 'can't remember' if they had PPI can't remember for a reason. They never had any PPI, if they did they'd likely remember having to agree to it anyway. We now have the bizarre situation whereby people actually seem to be disappointed if they find they never took PPI out.

The 'Claims Management' companies epitomise the entire situation. We now have entire companies set up purely to make random speculative claims on behalf of people who honestly have no idea whether they were mis-sold PPI so they can take a cut of the persons 'compensation' for a process that anyone can do themselves. It's scandalous that these companies are allowed to operate like this.

 

[Gilly]

I'm afraid I have no relevant statistically analysis other than a circle of friends and aquaintances. This is an assumption based on those, and perhaps not a fair reprensentation of the overall population. However given the prevelance of PPI cold calling, the 9000 adverts you will find in the back of the newspaper... I'd imagine that at least 60% of claims were dishonest.

So that's a number pulled out of your ass and has as much relevance as me, in devil's advocate guise, saying you're wrong and it is more like an equally unsubstantiated 5%?

I imagine the banks have set aside such a large amount of funds because it is going to be incredibly difficult for them to prove that PPI was not mis-sold. It comes down to the word of the customer, who is going to vehemently deny they wanted PPI / knew about it etc - vs the word of an advisor who probably doesnt recall the custiomer, or has maybe already moved on to another organisation. It would most likely cost the bank far more money to contest each claim in court than it will just to pay out.

It isn't an unlimited supply of money and eventually the banks will pick a case or two to fight. At that point all claims will be very heavily scrutinised and the tide will turn in the favour of the banks.

Only then will the claims dry up.

 

[Rids]

So that's a number pulled out of your ass and has as much relevance as me, in devil's advocate guise, saying you're wrong and it is more like an equally unsubstantiated 5%?

Its a guess pretty much. Your guess has as much weight as mine, its simply my opinion.

I'd imagine its not a statistic we are ever likely to get official word on since if the false claims could be identified, then they wouldnt be paid, and we wouldnt be in as much of a mess with it.