View more on these topics

Martin Wheatley: Banks’ complaints handling is ‘outrageous’ and ‘unacceptable’

FCA chief executive Martin Wheatley has launched a blistering attack on banks’ “outrageous” and “unacceptable” complaints handling as he revealed two more banks have been referred to enforcement over the way they deal with complaints.

Martin Wheatley
Wheatley attacks banks in front of MPs this morning

Data published by the Financial Ombudsman Service last week revealed the high level of upheld complaints at several banks in the first half of the year, including Lloyds TSB with 86 per cent of complaints upheld against it and Bank of Scotland with 80 per cent. 

Conservative MP and Treasury select committee member David Ruffley pointed out the FOS has been upholding more than 90 per cent of payment protection insurance claims.

Speaking at the Treasury select committee today, Wheatley said the Fos uphold rates are a problem that needs addressing.

Wheatley said: “It is absolutely not acceptable that such a number of rejected complaints by the banks are subsequently found against the banks. It is outrageous those sort of figures are still the case.

“We have been working very hard to look at bank complaint handling. We have taken enforcement action and will take more enforcement action and we will continue to pressure how banks handle complaints through our ongoing supervision and theme work. I share your concern and those figures are not good for an industry.

“We have got two large investigations underway and we have completed two where we have quite strong fines.”

In January the Co-operative Bank was fined £113,000 over failing to treat customers fairly over PPI payouts while in February Lloyds Banking Group was fined £4.3m over delays in paying PPI claims.

Last week the FCA launched a thematic review into complaint handling at major firms including banks and building societies after claiming it ”isn’t working”. It will publish its recommedations from the review in Q2 2014.

Recommended

Rise in equity levels boosts second-stepper affordability but figures down over 10 years

Housing affordability for “second steppers” has improved in the 12 months to June, according to research by Lloyds TSB. In June housing affordability – calculated as the average price of a typical second stepper home less their current equity position – stood at 4.4 times gross annual average earning, an improvement on 4.9 a year […]

montlake

Marketwatch

It does look as though the broking community will look back on this year as the point when things finally got exciting again

Talking of interest-only … done it yet?

The FCA recently issued guidance to lenders and mortgage intermediaries about their treatment of interest-only customers. The regulator has placed great emphasis on Principle 6, which relates to treating customers fairly, and the common response to Principle 6 from many in financial services is: “Well, I do that as a matter of course.” I am […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up
Comments
  • Post a comment
  • Robert Clayton 12th September 2013 at 2:20 pm

    As a contractor working on PPI assessments for Black Horse, I witnessed the kind of malpractice recently described by Martin Wheatley as ‘outrageous’ and unacceptable’

    How would you square this example with TCF?

    Complaints about agreements sold with PPI to any employee of the NHS, Government or Local Government (or anyone with equivalent employee benefits – 6 months Sick Pay, more than 2 x annual salary Death in Service Benefit, 6 months Redundancy pay) would be upheld be upheld immediately. The PPI would have obviously been mis-sold – why would they need cover?

    BUT – if there was no payslip or other evidence of the complainants employment, a phone call would have to be made to ask the customer to confirm their employment status, and to ask if they knew what their employee benefits were. If they co, the complaint was rejected.

    All arguments were met with ‘Compliance says so’. TCF?

    Just one of the many ways that the banks try to wriggle out of their responsibility to compensate customers who were victims of their criminal behaviour.