Advisers could face lower FOS fees next year as banks begin shouldering the cost of handling payment protection insurance (PPI) complaints against them, the ombudsman said.
The ombudsman service hit the industry last month with a £25m levy it said was needed to cover the exceptional cost of dealing with the 5,000 complaints it is receiving about PPI every week.
However, the British Bankers' Association (BBA) said yesterday it will not appeal a High Court judgment backing up the ombudsman's and FSA's view PPI had been widely mis-sold.
Banks, which were found to be the biggest culprits in the mis-selling scandal, had previously refused to either deal with the complaints internally or pay the cost of those complaints handled by FOS.
The climb-down has promoted calls from the wider industry for FOS to pass back the burden of the costs to the guilty parties, and hand back some of the £25m to levypayers.
All firms authorised or registered by the FSA were hit with the levy, including those which have not had any cases referred to the ombudsman service.
A FOS spokesperson said if the reserve was not needed it will be used to offset next year's levy.
"If the reserve is not required, it will help to reduce calls on the industry next year," he said.
But he added there is still "considerable uncertainty" about the volume, scale and type of PPI complaints and steps the ombudsman will need to take to resolve the large number of cases it has to deal with.
The FOS said it has received over 200,000 complaints in total about PPI policies, with over 100,000 in the last financial year 2010/11. It has upheld three out of four cases in favour of consumers.
| Share | |
| Comment | Banks' PPI climb-down could lower FOS fees |
More better business news
Email alerts
Recommended reading
Categories
Topics
Comments
You Still Have to Claim the Money
The Judicial Review dispute was about a set of best practises that the FSA introduced in December 2010 and whether they could be applied retrospectively. The instructions from the FSA were that banks should justify why they had sold PPI, and if they could not created the obligation to inform their customer of a “potential claim”. Being informed of a potential claim is not the same as receiving compensation. For the customer to recover this money they still need to establish a basis of claim ie on what legal grounds they believe they should receive their money back, and they need to establish the type of claim ie termination or rescission of the PPI contract. They also need to know how to quantify the claim so when the bank makes an ex gratia offer in full settlement they can accept it in the knowledge that they are receiving the correct amount. Anthony Brennan LLB ACCA CEO Bank Charge Recovery Ltd
Posted by: anthony brennan
Related articles
Most Read
This year we have 14 awards designed to mark out the very best products in a highly competitive and innovative market. This includes three new awards for 2011 to reflect the developments in this rapidly growing market: Best Dual/Multi-Index Product, Best Structured (Oeic) Fund and Best Structured Product Provider.
Events
Poll
|
|
Job search
Ifaonlinejobs will open the right investment career path for you. Search hundreds of vacancies on www.ifaonlinejobs.co.uk now
In Focus
Viewpoints
About 2.66 million people are looking to increase the amount of money...
Pigs might fly..
...better to bill the banks for their own complaints up front and double it!
Posted by: Exasperated Me