That stock News

But behind the scenes actions suggest that they give two vocalize on treating customers fairly. My reasoning is carefully summarized by the well-known PPI debacle.

IPP is an acronym for payment protection insurance, which covers repayments on credit products if the borrower is unable to make refunds due to accident, illness, unemployment or death.

Over the years, hundreds of thousands of people have been under pressure by purchasing this product expensive because they thought it was mandatory, or that it was part of the loan agreement.Many people, such as the self-employed, signed on the dotted line, even if they were unfit to demand.

Evidence against the established – selling of key Informants is considérable.Enquête after an investigation found that suppliers do not play fair.

An investigation by the Financial Services Authority in 2005 has shown many political key Informants were sold "inappropriately".the FSA has now made 24 coercive measures and imposed fines totalling ￡ 1."6 m on the preferences of the Alliance & Leicester, Capital One and HFC, a subsidiary of HSBC.

In 2009, the regulator prohibits the sale of premium single political key Informants and a few months later, has launched a consultation on how vendors must deal with complaints.

Yet poor practices continued and (FOS) Financial Ombudsman service was more complaints to PPI customers each jour.IPP is now more has complained about the type of insurance.

Office of Fair Trading was dragged into the case and its survey year, which ended in 2007, resulted in the case referred to the competition .the Commission'OFT suspects that "it is characteristic of this market which restrict competition to the detriment of consumers."

Initially, the Competition Commission concluded that without PPI is not a personal loans sale value because they wouldn't rentables.Il was well documented that banks rake billion pounds from the sale of these policies.Providers can earn income of ￡ 1,200 a policy that can only 20 books to sell.

Last week, the commission confirmed that the banks could not sell PPI at point of sale.Despite all the criticism, he said he was "far persuaded competition of PPI problems have disappeared since our initial report was published in 2009 - rather fundamental problems remain.

The commission hopes that the imposition of a ban on point of sale, market competition will increase, which will result in lower premiums.

Thus, you it .c ' is an open-and - shut .IPP is bad and customers deserve better.

Do not according to our banques.Ils are unhappy rules laid down for handling complaints - lose nine out of ten cases that go to the ombudsman .they seek a judicial review (which they claim is necessary "Unfortunately") on the new rules, saying they impose standards in retrospect on the historical sales, which means in effect that complaints pending are put on hold.

They argue that the FSA has "demonstrated step there is a real problem for improper sales or sales PPI, having raised complaint handling and retrospect our expectations of what was needed at the point of sale".the banks argue that they did not know that the FSA means "clear, fair and not misleading.

Gall banks is quite amazing and I am in agreement with the response to that?He said: "it makes you wonder what planet living happy banques.Non of billions of dollars that they have made this product, price, imperfect and often set-sold, banks now seem to be trying to escape to implement changes to ensure consumers are treated fairly."

"The British Bankers' Association of the taxpayer-backed members should look long and hard on themselves and asking why they continue to carry out this ridiculous war on consumers."

Entirely.

View the original article here