Call for BBA to take responsibility for PPI review
Share
Credible claims management companies should not be forced to foot the bill for lost case fee income pending the outcome of the judicial review into payment protection insurance, claims Mike Ransom, managing director of Investor Compensation.
Investor Compensation, which is part of the Mitchell Farrar Group, argues calls from the Association of British Insurers encouraging the Financial Ombudsman Service to force claims management firms to contribute to its funding are based on flawed foundations.
The ABI believes the ongoing review into PPI, which was brought by the British Bankers’ Association, has led to an influx of unsubstantiated PPI claims.
Ransom says PPI cases now account for approximately a quarter of claims being referred to the FOS and its fee structure will not bring in the necessary funding.
He says: “Credible claims management companies should not be forced to pick up the bill in the meantime. Whilst some claims organisations may aggressively seek out potential cases, causing such an influx, a credible claims management company will validate all payment protection complaints they take on.
“Every case will be a credible one - all cases that are submitted to the FOS have an eight-page questionnaire detailing the nature of the complaint.”
Ransom argues the BBA ought to take responsibility for the review.
He says: “Credible cases, lost causes have led to ombudsman budget woes. It is the banks who should be paying the price for this phenomenon due to their widespread mis-selling.
“The judicial review has been brought by the BBA into payment protection insurance and they should be held accountable.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Mortgage Strategy and Follow @mortgagestrat
Readers' comments (5)
Anonymous | 7 Mar 2011 3:18 pm
Given that Mr Ransom used to be an Approved Person who oversaw the sale of single premium payment protection in 2007 I find this sanctimonious self serving piece of uncredible PR rather ironic!!!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Duckworth | 7 Mar 2011 3:37 pm
The article above is correct, I fully agree the BBA is just seeking to get it's members off the hook so they can afford there over the top bonuses. Barclays have just paid a 6 million pound bonus and that is wrong.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Wertheim | 8 Mar 2011 8:12 am
How an earth do they get away with day light robbery (The Banks)! Working at Ultimate Law we litigate everyday against lenders who have totally mis sold PPI. We have the old, those who work in the armed forces and those who just could not afford the PPI. I invite anyone to come and spend a day and look at the massive amounts of the money the banks have fleeced off the normal “Mr Joe”. If we lived in the real world the banks and lenders would be properly punished for their breach in fiduciary duty. Read more: - www.ultimatelaw.net
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 8 Mar 2011 5:13 pm
I find Mr Ransom's comment that Investor Compensation 'validate all PPI complaints they take on' rather laughable. The amount of cases I myself have dealt with from them that state endless reasons for mis-sale when no PPI was even sold is ridiculous! Perhaps he should 'invest' more time in running his company rather than drafting factually inaccurate statements to the press
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
meggoman | 17 Mar 2011 12:22 pm
Every PPI policy EVER sold with a loan or credit card has, in my view, been missold. Simply because the primary purpose was not to provide payment protection to the borrower but to generate commsion income for the lender.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment