The PPI Deadline Scandal
Is the PPI deadline scandal as big as the PPI scandal itself?
After much anticipation the Financial Conduct Authority have caved in to the pressure by the banks and set a PPI deadline for 29th August 2019.
Whilst this has come as little surprise to most it does highlight yet again that the banking regulator protects the banks and not consumers.
The PPI deadline could see millions of consumers miss out on compensation they deserve, purely to protect the greed of the banking sector.
Your Money Claim have compiled and submitted a list of questions to put to the FCA, and we await their response…
Is the PPI deadline lawful?
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), deals with complaints made against financial providers governed by the FCA.
FOS has clear rules on when a complaint may be considered, which is widely regarded as the six / three rule.
Basically, a complaint can be made either six years from the date of the alleged offence, or three years from the date when the consumer reasonably became aware they had reason to complain.
It is widely accepted that the majority of consumers who have not yet stepped forward to make their PPI claim are unaware they were sold the product.
Therefore, by FOS rules, the three year period cannot commence until such time as these consumers are made aware they were sold PPI.
The PPI deadline is therefore in clear conflict with the rules set by the FCA and FOS.
Why doesn’t the FCA force providers to advise customers who were sold PPI?
This should have been done as soon as the PPI scandal was uncovered.
If every financial provider was forced to contact all current and previous customers who they sold a PPI policy to, the FCA could impose a three year deadline to claim.
There is a clear reason why the FCA have not imposed this and it is simply because they are weak.
Why impose a deadline when providers are still handling complaints unfairly?
Surely a deadline should only ever be considered once the handling of such complaints are done in a fair and reasonable manner?
FOS handle complaints escalated to them if a consumer is unhappy with how the provider has handled the initial complaint.
FOS release data regarding these complaints which have consistently shown that providers have handled PPI complaints unfairly.
FOS continue to overturn the majority of rejected PPI complaints made by providers.
PPI and customer service related fines have continued to be handed out years into the whole scandal, further proof that providers simply haven’t got their houses in order.
What is the primary role of the regulator?
This should be a simple question to answer, had the FCA not shown their consistent weakness and poor leadership.
The role of the regulator is to protect consumers.
The role of the regulator is NOT to protect the liquidity of the banking sector.
Sounds simple, should be simple, but this is the FCA we’re talking about.
The fightback begins
It didn’t take long for a legal challenge to be launched against the PPI deadline.
The reasoning behind the challenge is relatively clear, it is unlawful and unfair to consumers.
The result of the legal challenge will, in our opinion, highlight whether the rights of consumers is more important than the greed of the banking sector.
It could be an interesting fight.