Results tagged “PPI” from Birmingham Mail - Is It Just Me
IF the Government really wanted to do something useful they could deal with the PPI parasites who randomly trawl through mobile phone numbers with their crappy recorded messages.
I had four such calls on holiday in Italy and have had two today. These firms do nothing useful and are costing the banks a fortune in dealing with their scattergun inquiries. I have no sympathy with the banks who flogged PPI insurance that was all but worthless - a niece of a friend who was living on benefits was sold not only a loan but also PPI to cover her if she lost the job she didn't actually have.
But the thousands of spurious PPI inquires by these firms on fishing expeditions are costing the banks a small fortune, let along the cost of paying out genuine claims, and banks are not known for absorbing costs themselves, so you can be pretty sure that the cost of dealing with the PPI parasites is going to come out of our pockets, or bank accounts, eventually.
Ban cold calling and, for that matter, junk mail and life would be so much easier - and in the case of junk mail - we would have so much less rubbish to go in landfill.
So I put a complaint in direct to Consumer Money Matters put the phone down and ten minutes later a call from . . . you guessed it, Consumer Money Matters about PPI and how they could help me claim it back. You despair.
I am not generally in favour of capital punishment but the next person to call me about reclaiming Payment Protection Insurance I will happily string from the nearest lamp post myself.
Three calls and a couple of silent calls this morning so far and about five yesterday, four the day before . . . and I am registered with the Telephone Preference Service as not wanting cold callers. It has become a telephonic disease.
Some outfit called Consumer Money Matters seem to be regular culprits with a heady mix of silent calls and highly persistent youths who think a polite "no I am not interested" means come in and have a cup of tea, I'll stop whatever it was I was doing and have a chat.
I have had to sit down to say it but I actually have some sympathy with the banks over the payment protection insurance debacle.
Yes the insurance was vastly overpriced, had more small print the the Bible engraved on a pin-head and was a nice little earner for the banks.
And yes there were instances where it was blatantly mis-sold. A friend's relative was sold PPI on a rather large car loan despite the fact she was unemployed and living solely on benefits so redundancy and sickness protection were hardly an issue - in fact she needed taking-out-a-loan protection and in her case questions should have been asked about mis-selling that particular loan to someone in her circumstances - although lawyers, always on the look out for a new trough for their snouts, are probably already considering ways to milk that one.
Yet many people took out PPI knowing it was expensive and had drawbacks, had paperwork to study and 14 days to decide not to take out the insurance but for peace of mind or whatever, decided to continue.
Now if I take out a crap insurance policy on my house, car or whatever that is my problem unless I can prove I was told something that was blatantly untrue yet with PPI it seems anyone who took it out, even if their eyes were wide open and they knew exactly what they were doing, with no mis-selling at all, can have their money back, which as we are talking banks here, means they can have money from other customers back as the banks sure as hell will not be paying. In short instead of insurance it has, for many, become a windfall savings scheme.
It is like the endowment compensation bonanza where people with endowment mortgages queued up for cash back with many of them knowing full well that the endowment they took out was effectively an investment in the stock and money markets which could turn out, like any punt on the markets, good or bad.
Historically it had been very good but after 9/11 the markets crashed and so did endowments so it is hard to see why everyone should have compensation for what was little more than bad luck.
Equity Life was another example. A mutual life assurance fund owned by members which was offering unbelievable returns. Most of its members were doctors, medical professionals, lawyers, senior civil servants and the like who had enough letters behind their names to at least get the whiff of a rat in there. But no, greed took over.
But the make up of members, full of power, influence and old boys plugged into the network was its salvation. Somehow the Government decides to pay out compensation for that one, £1.5 billion, which was about three times what Sir John Chadwick, a retired judge appointed by the Government, to look into a compensation scheme had recommended.
I suspect if the members of Equitable Life had been Rover track workers, cleaners, factory slaves and armies of typing pool secretaries the Government answer would have been more along the lines of tough nuts pal.