The last example was an exercise in communication undertaken with my son but, all credit to Walkers, we received a reply explaining how carefully they decide which flavours they offer and why, and how sorry they were that we weren’t completely happy. And that is the point about complaints, all we really require is the opportunity to voice our concerns and the satisfaction we receive is that somebody will investigate the matter in a fair and impartial way and respond. We might not agree with the response but we’ve made our point.

In customer service complaints can generally be defined as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction whether justified or not’ and those businesses which abide by this ethos will still take the time and trouble to investigate and communicate their findings whichever side of this equation the complaint falls under.

But what if the complaint made involves a major High Street bank and relates to the loss of thousands of pounds to a customer because the advice he received was totally unsuitable for him and his circumstances? What if the basic principles as set out by that bank and its regulator were blatantly not followed? What if the financially naive customer was informed that the investment opportunity he was being offered was so great that he should borrow £19,000 so he could invest the minimum amount of £50,000? What if the same bank happily arranged this loan making them even more profit from this, as then, satisfied customer?

It could be expected that the bank would bend over backwards to look at how this was allowed to happen. They would gather all available information to understand what had gone wrong, whether the adviser had a habit of making similar unsuitable recommendations and ensure that other customers had not suffered the same fate.

But what if the bank refused to look at this genuine complaint because the customer took too long to bring this matter to their attention? It seems absurd that they could be presented with an array of information supporting this issue, have access to their internal records confirming those details yet steadfastly refuse to even start to investigate the matter because they believe their disadvantaged customer should have complained sooner. Unfortunately, the bank are entitled to answer in this way.

Perhaps the Financial Ombudsman Service would decide to uphold this complaint when referred to them? Even more bizarrely the Financial Ombudsman Service would agree with the bank that it is correct that they can ‘time bar’ complaints if they are not made within 6 years of the advice being given or within 3 years of being aware that there was an issue with the advice.

As a Claims Management Company specialising in the area of mis-sold investments we are seeing some banks hide behind this frankly unfair rule which prevents them from having to do the right thing and deal properly with justified complaints put to them by customers. With respect not all banks work in the same manner and many will go out of their way to put things right when a wrong has been committed.

Many people feel intimidated when dealing directly with the banks and are often made to feel foolish when questioning their practices. It is common that we speak to clients who are totally unaware that they have a case to bring because, understandably, they do not know the procedures set out by the regulator which advisers must follow to be compliant in their work.

Of course it would be unreasonable to expect a bank to deal effectively with a problem from many years ago with no information to back up either side of the argument. However, to time bar a complaint with comprehensive proof of non-compliance adds insult to injury and once again shows the banks as uncaring giants looking to squirm their way out of any responsibility unless they are forced to react differently.

The regulator should shoulder some of the blame in this instance and it would be fairer to all concerned, particularly the important customer, if it demanded that complaints that could be dealt with should be reviewed as a matter of course to ensure the fairest outcome and turn huge negatives into positives. After all, Walkers Cheese & Onion Squares are now available in packs of 6.

Author: Michael Jordan

This article for Credit Claims Online was written by Michael Jordan who has over 20 years experience in banking with Barclays and NatWest. A qualified Independent Financial Adviser and Mortgage Adviser he is well placed to advise clients on some of our more complex mis selling cases. Michael offers free assessments for mis sold investment products and in his spare time regularly contributes highly commended articles to over 20 national websites.

You can contact Michael on  01204 894831  and circle him on Google+ 

Quick Links:

ISA’s, Unit Trusts, Investment Bonds, Capital Protected Bonds, PEP’s, Mis sold Investments

The post Sorry Too Late. An Unsatisfactory Answer From The Banks appeared first on Credit Claims Online.

With the benefit of hindsight financial advice looks exceptionally easy and some investors believe that advisers should be able to look into the future with a crystal ball when things don’t quite turn out as planned. Of course everyone should have realised in 2008 how bad the economy actually was, the FTSE100 was about to collapse and RBS shares would soon be worth less than 1/20th of their value. Unfortunately everyone didn’t.

However, looking back at an article published in June 2002 by This is MONEY it appears that at least Andrew Oxlade had the foresight to recognise that a decade or so later the new flavour of the month – capital protected investments – may ultimately leave a sour taste in the mouth for many investors. Taking into account the recent high profile acknowledgment by Lloyds TSB that the vast majority of their capital protected investments were mis-sold shows Andrew’s excellent judgment with his criticism of these types of investment.

Firstly, many investors were understandably not aware there is a difference between protected investments and guaranteed investments. It is only guaranteed investments which absolutely promise to return an investor’s capital in full. Protected investments are underwritten by other institutions and their promise to repay is only as good as their ability to do so. The demise of Lehman Brothers and the losses incurred by investors illustrate the risks that are still relevant.

In addition any positive returns are linked to various indices such as the FTSE 100 which is fairly straight forward for even an inexperienced investor to understand. However, in order to obtain greater potential returns, ever more complex investments were created involving several different markets such as Dow Jones, Euro Stoxx and even house prices. Returns were linked to their performance in imaginative ways such as ‘capital protection was available if 2 out of the 3 indices grew by not less than 5% and the third remained within 10% of the starting level’… and so on. No wonder investors became confused and were mis sold capital protected  bonds.

The way these investments were sold also left a lot to be desired. High potential returns were highlighted (although these were often capped) and the realistic prospect of receiving just a return of capital was dismissed or ignored. In real terms of course a return of capital alone without any interest is a loss when taking inflation into account as many people with maturing capital protected investments have found.

Looking back it now seems clear that it was perhaps foolish to embrace protected investments as a risk free opportunity to have a slice of the growth available across the global economy. With hindsight keeping money on deposit would more than likely have given better returns, but with hand on heart would any investor have happily decided to keep their funds in a High St savings account?

In the early 2020s it will be intriguing to discover what we should have obviously known today to make the simple investment decisions with handsome returns.

If you feel you may have mis sold capital protected bonds – get expert advice and find out if you are entitled to compensation

Author: Michael Jordan

This article for Credit Claims Online was written by Michael Jordan who has over 20 years experience in banking with Barclays and NatWest. A qualified Independent Financial Adviser and Mortgage Adviser he is well placed to advise clients on some of our more complex mis selling cases. Michael offers free assessments for mis sold investment products and in his spare time regularly contributes highly commended articles to over 20 national websites.

You can contact Michael on  01204 894831  and circle him on Google+ 

Quick Links:

ISA’s, Unit Trusts, Investment Bonds, Capital Protected Bonds, PEP’s, Mis sold Investments

The post Mis Sold Capital Protected Bonds Seen As Risky Over A Decade Ago appeared first on Credit Claims Online.

An investigation by Money Mail has led to a review of the sales of a selected number of investment plans sold by the bank through its branch based financial advisers. Sales of the Scottish Widows Capital Protected Fund 5, Protected Capital Solutions Fund and the Guaranteed Investment Bond between 2007 and 2012 are to be looked at to see if customers may have been mis-sold.

These bonds were sold on the basis that the capital was guaranteed despite market fluctuations, meaning customers would at least get their original capital back. What was not always made clear was that if only the capital was returned, then in real terms the customer was actually losing money because of the effects of inflation. Advisers would often use the sales patter of big returns with no risk to capital to secure sales of these misleading products. It now turns out that investors would have been better off leaving their money in deposit accounts.

Although the bank has agreed to telephone all customers it thinks may have been affected, it has made it clear that not everyone who invested into one of these funds will be contacted. It will concentrate on those it thinks were most at risk like the elderly, inexperienced and those that put a large proportion of their savings into a bond. This means many investors could miss out on compensation.

Anyone who has invested into an ISA, Investment Bond, Unit Trust or any stock market linked product over the last ten years or so may have been mis-sold and should consider making a complaint as they could be entitled to compensation.

Author: Michael Jordan

This article for Credit Claims Online was written by Michael Jordan who has over 20 years experience in banking with Barclays and NatWest. A qualified Independent Financial Adviser and Mortgage Adviser he is well placed to advise clients on some of our more complex mis selling cases.

You can contact Michael on  01204 894831  and circle him on Google+

Quick Links:

ISA’s, Unit Trusts, Investment Bonds, Capital Protected Bonds, PEP’s

The post Lloyds bank guilty of mis-selling investments appeared first on Credit Claims Online.

The banking industry is in talks with the Financial Services Authority to try and put a deadline on those wanting to seek compensation for mis sold payment protection insurance (PPI).

According to a report in The Times newspaper, bankers are trying to persuade the regulator that unless a time limit is imposed, ppi claims could go on for many many years to come.

Michelle Barrett, Operations Director at Credit Claims, commenting in response to the news said: `I cannot believe the banks are still trying to wriggle out of compensating the customers they have wronged. If they were that concerned about the length of time claims could go on for, they should have made the claims process much simpler from the start’

It is rumoured that the banks may start an advertising campaign to advise people about the deadline, if they can come to an agreement with the FSA. The deadline could be as soon as next summer if the banks get their way.

‘To try and impose this sort of deadline on the general public would be unfair in my opinion. It would mean thousands of people missing out on ppi compensation that they are entitled to. The banks should instead increase the number of customers they are writing to directly, to offer a review of the ppi products’ said Michelle Barrett.

The banks are also bracing themselves for other possible mis-selling claims involving Cardholder Protection and Packaged Bank Accounts. Cardholder protection is a fee added to credit cards to protect the customer from fraudulent use of their credit cards. The problem is the protection it provides is already covered in the standard terms and conditions of most credit cards. In November 2012 the FSA fined Cardholder Protection Plan Ltd (CPP) a massive £10.5 million for sustained mis-selling of this and Identity Theft Insurance.

‘If you lose your credit card and it is used fraudulently, the bank will cover any losses, provided you were not negligent in any way. So the question arises, why were the banks selling this sort of insurance onto their customers?’ said Michelle Barrett

Packaged  Bank Accounts offer add ons like travel insurance, mobile phone insurance, free will writing service and other perks. The problem is that many of these services come with restrictions on claiming, meaning many people could never make a successful claim on the policy. The FSA has asked banks to consider whether customers are eligible to claim before selling one of these fee charging bank accounts, which can cost from £5 upto about £25 per month.

Links:

do-ppi-claims-impact-the-economy

have-you-been-missold-an-isa

Author: Michael Jordan

This article for Credit Claims Online was written by Michael Jordan who has over 20 years experience in banking with Barclays and NatWest. A qualified Independent Financial Adviser and Mortgage Adviser he is well placed to advise clients on some of our more complex mis selling cases.

You can contact Michael on  01204 894831  and circle him on Google+

The post Banks unfair deadline for PPI claims appeared first on Credit Claims Online.

The widespread mis-selling of Payment Protection Insurance

The economy managed to benefit greatly from the millions of customers who took out PPI insurance, because UK-based loan companies and banks have made £6bn from this form of insurance. This equates to a profit of £1.4bn, which is quite staggering. This is good for the economy because with this amount of money hidden away, banks were able to invest funds into other businesses, which ultimately boosted job opportunities and reduced levels of unemployment. However, more than 70% of policies were proved to be mis-sold PPI. The surge in PPI compensation claims that followed meant that banks were forced to pay back the money to their customers.

Some banks that were hit hard by the truth that was uncovered regarding mis-sold PPI were Alliance and Leicester, GE Capital Bank Ltd, Liverpool Victoria, Capital One and the Regency Mortgage Corporation, to name a few. A&L were fined the highest amount for the insurance that they wrongly sold to customers, with £7million being taken from them in October 2008. Although this loss of funds has prevented banks from assisting strained businesses and from gaining customers to their own business, it is enabling people who have won PPI compensation to throw billions of pounds back into the UK economy, which proves that claiming these funds will be profitable in the long-run.

The post Do PPI Claims Impact the Economy appeared first on Credit Claims Online.

Controversy

There has been much controversy surrounding PPI for the last 6 years because it was then that it was discovered that many banks had been mis selling PPI to unsuspecting customers in order to make money. Mis selling PPI involves selling PPI which is not relevant to the customer as it would never pay out. This is an unethical practice and if it has happened to you, you are likely to be eligible for compensation. The High Court recently ruled against the banks meaning they have had to put aside £10 billion of potential compensation for loan and credit card customers. The banks were also instructed to write to customers who may be eligible even if they did not apply for the compensation.

How do you know if you are eligible?

Firstly, the banks have been instructed to inform all of their customers who may be eligible by letter, so it is likely that if you are eligible, you may have already been contacted by your bank. It is important to know that not all customers will be contacted and this process could take some time. It is important to act now, so look over all of your loan documents and check to see if you did have PPI. If so, think back to when you first got the loan and ask yourself:

Were you told that PPI was compulsory? It is always optional.
Were you a student, pensioner or self employed at the time when you got the loan?
Check all loan contracts to see if the cost of PPI was embedded without your knowledge.

Claiming

If you suspect that you have been mis sold PPI, either contact your bank directly or go via a claims handler who can handle the whole thing for you from start to finish and make your PPI claim back.

The post How do you know if you have been Mis sold PPI appeared first on Credit Claims Online.

When the scandal emerged there was inevitable uproar and it has led to thousands of PPI claims being made for compensation, for money that people have wasted with this policy. People have been lodging such claims for some years now and interesting recent news states that claims continue to increase.

Significant Rise in PPI Claims

Recent reports from the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) have proved very interesting to anyone making PPI claims, as well as to banks and intermediaries who have arranged payment protection insurance in the past. The FOS states that in the last quarter of 2010, October to December, PPI claims actually rose to 24,955. This figure represents an increase in complaints of a massive 17% when compared to the previous financial quarter. This figure is also greatly significant as it means that complaints in the last quarter “totalled more than 50% of those received in the whole of the previous year” (Broking.co.uk).

This seems to illustrate that PPI claims are not being swept under the carpet and that now is as a good a time as any to make a claim, to reclaim money wasted on mis-sold insurance products.

Information and Help with PPI Claims from PPI Return

PPI Return is a division of Goldsmith Williams law firm and this branch can help you reclaim any money you are entitled to through PPI claims. PPI Return is home to a team of experienced lawyers who have the expertise needed to get you what you deserve if you have been mis-sold loan insurance. For more information about PPI browse the rest of the website.

The post Financial Ombudsman Service Reports PPI Claims Continue to Increase appeared first on Credit Claims Online.

Barclays said it had cut complaints by 14% compared with a year earlier. Other brands high on the list included Lloyds TSB (181,907), Santander (168,888) and NatWest (147,109). The data pulls together figures released in recent weeks by banks.

Nearly 10,000 complaints were filed every day to financial institutions, with a total of 1.85 million made in the first six months of the year. The FSA figures showed that, among the most complained-about banking brands, Santander was the most likely of the major brands to deal with cases within eight weeks; it closed 98% of cases within that time frame. This compared with 74% at Royal Bank of Scotland, 77% at Lloyds TSB, 86% at NatWest, 89% at Barclays and 90% at HSBC. Complaints were dominated by those about payment protection insurance (PPI), especially after banks lost their legal challenge on PPI rules in April.

PPI is supposed to cover borrowers’ loan repayments if they fall ill, die, or lose their jobs, but mis-selling cases led to new rules on how cases should be dealt with, and also created an extra compensation bill running into billions of pounds for the banks.

Adam Scorer, of watchdog Consumer Focus, said: “This issue continues to dog the financial sector and is a big test of its commitment to treating consumers fairly.

“All firms need to deal with outstanding cases and make sure everyone affected is treated efficiently and fairly.”

Complaints about banking, rather than insurance and some other categories, fell by 22% compared with the same period a year earlier.

The FSA’s complaints figures are published relating to banking brands. Barclays headed the list but said the number of complaints had fallen by 14% compared with the same period a year earlier.

“We want to get it right every time. When we do get it wrong, we apologise, try to correct it quickly and identify how to prevent it from reoccurring,” said Antony Jenkins, chief executive of Barclays Retail and Business Banking.

“We have made good progress in reducing complaints with a substantial and sustainable reduction in banking complaints by nearly a third.

“However, there is much more to be done and we are working hard to further improve our service to our customers, putting them at the heart of our business and getting it right first time, every time.”

The largest group, Lloyds Banking Group, had most complaints when all its brands were added together. Some complaints that are unresolved by the banks themselves end up with the independent Financial Ombudsman Service. It recently said that the largest number of these complaints in the first half of the year also related to Lloyds Banking Group, as well as nearly two-thirds of the new complaints made in the six months to the end of June being about PPI.

The post Barclays Heads UK Complaints List Among Banking Brands appeared first on Credit Claims Online.

The cash was paid out by 16 unnamed firms, representing 92% of PPI complaints made between January and June this year; the payouts follow the dismissal by the High Court of the banks’ challenge to the PPI compensation rules in April. In May and June alone, £102m was paid out to customers.

The monthly totals for the first six months of the year were: £29m in January, £31m in February, £28m in March, £25m in April, £37m in May, and £65m in June.

A string of High Street banks have set aside cash to settle PPI complaints: Lloyds’ £3.2bn PPI compensation bill is the largest of any UK bank. Barclays is setting aside £1bn, RBS £850m and HSBC £269m. The figures released by the FSA also included payments made after rulings by the Financial Ombudsman. The independent body, which rules on financial cases not settled by banks, has revealed it has received more than a quarter of a million PPI complaints in total, with a record 104,597 received in the last financial year.

It said it had upheld three out of four complaints, with an average payout of £2,750. Margaret Cole, interim managing director of the FSA’s conduct business unit said: “The treatment of PPI complainants has left an indelible stain on the financial industry’s record.

“We remain 100% committed to ensuring that where consumers were mis-sold PPI they will receive the appropriate redress from firms, and we are monitoring firms’ progress to ensure this is done properly.”

The post PPI Mis-Selling Payouts Hit £215m in First Half of 2011 appeared first on Credit Claims Online.

Millions of customers have now realised that for years, banks have made a killing from selling expensive Payment Protection Insurance to people taking out loans – whether or not it was appropriate. It became so profitable for banks to sell PPI – which will cover your repayments for a year in the event of an accident, sickness or unemployment – that many customers ended up paying for it without even realising. Others were sold insurance they didn’t need or couldn’t use, but which still ended up costing them thousands of pounds. Now the regulators have woken up to this scandal, which dates right back into the 1990s, and the banks were forced to put aside billions of pounds to cover the cost of compensation to thousands of customers after abandoning a legal challenge in the High Court.

Earlier this year, Streetwise provided readers with a checklist to help them work out whether they have been on the receiving end of this gross mis-selling, but we are still receiving calls from those of you who aren’t happy, and the latest figures from the Financial Services Authority show that in many cases the industry is failing in its attempts to resolve people’s complaints.

Independent consumer watchdog Which? has led the fight for compensation for those affected, but executive director Richard Lloyd says banks still aren’t treating customers fairly. He says: ‘If the next round of complaints data doesn’t show a dramatic improvement then the FSA must take tough enforcement action against banks whose complaints handling isn’t up to scratch. To ensure that consumers get the redress they deserve the FSA must make sure that all major banking groups are required to review the PPI complaints they previously rejected unfairly. Even if you take PPI out of the equation, these figures point to the blasé attitude banks seem to have towards their customers.

‘In a properly functioning market, banks wouldn’t be able to get away with treating customers like this.’

The figures show what percentage of complaints the regulator resolved in favour of the customer, because the bank was not willing to take sufficient action. Of the big four retail banks, Lloyds TSB has the worst complaint record, with 84 per cent over the last six months being settled against them. Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays occupy the middle ground, with scores of 55 per cent and 52 per cent respectively. But far ahead of the others – for this period at least – is HSBC, with a much more respectable 18 per cent of cases ruled against it.

Natalie Ceeney, chief executive of the FSA, puts the statistics into context when she says: ‘These latest figures show a significant increase in the number of new PPI complaints referred to the ombudsman during the first half of 2011. This period coincided with the time when most of the high street banks and some other financial businesses had put PPI complaints on hold, because of their legal challenge against the ombudsman service and FSA.’

And News consumer rights expert Richard Thomson echoes the view of Which? that banks aren’t doing enough to sort the problem out. He said: ‘The banks have been lumped with hefty fines by the regulator, withdrew from a High Court test case they had in the pipeline to try to avoid compensating consumers for mis-selling, and have been compelled to make provision of billions of pounds for compensation, which has dented their profits for last year.’

The post Payment Protection Scandal Rumbles On appeared first on Credit Claims Online.