Talk:Payment protection insurance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Claim ratio[edit]

Wouldn't a claim ratio of "over 5 times as high" as 20% be more than 100%? Even without that, both statements need citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.244.38 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC) If something you can buy is $100 but the price your charged is $800 then the figure would be 8 times higher or plus 800% so yes your right over 5 times higher would be more than 100% it would be plus 500%, Have a great day![reply]

Credit Protection Insurance became Debt suspension insurance a few years back. This is an important distinction to make because debt suspension means the credit card companies are not really paying anything back even as they collect obscene amounts of money. Recently, the consumer protection financial bureau collectively fined all the credit card companies close to a billion dollars.

The credit card protection insurance program has been suspended for the time being.

The 4.25% interest rate makes no sense as well. It would only take 7 years for a 10,000 dollar debt to be completely taken over by credit protector insurance monthly premium charges and the interest charged on those premiums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.214.209 (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

95% of claims mis-sold?[edit]

"95% of all claims were upheld by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), which means that 95% of PPI policies sold by banks and lenders in the UK were mis-sold." This statement is completely wrong. The Financial Ombudsman Service is a last resort for complainants who have already exhausted the complaints procedure at the provider in question. People rarely go to FOS unless they have a genuine complaint, hence the high rate of upheld complaints. Only a fraction of PPI policies sold result in a FOS complaint, so how can this figure be indicative of the market as a whole? Sithemadmonkey (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now deleted this phrase due to the explanation above. Sithemadmonkey (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the mis-selling rate, isn't the same as the FOS upholding rate ; but considering only PPI sold with the product, it might be higher than 95 % : 1) The only cost to the consumer, of a complaint to the FOS, is sending again the paperwork they sent to the firm. When the FOS makes a ruling, it is the consumer ( not the firm ) that decides if the ruling will be applied. A consumer who has complained to a firm, must have initially felt they had a genuine complaint ; so unless the firm's rejection reply convinces them, they may feel that it is worth contacting the FOS. The firm's rejection reply must include a reference to the FOS, so the consumer will be aware of it ; and as the high FOS uphold rate became public, consumers would have felt less worried about the emotional cost of being rejected again. 2) Firms have been instructed to review previous rejections ; accepting some more. 3) Firms have been required to contact consumers who may not even have known their product included PPI. 4) Consumers who since became bankrupt, cannot claim for themselves, so will probably not bother ; although their Insolvency Practitioner might later. 5) The Plevin vs Paragon case identified a new ground of complaint, that the commission was unduly high ; so more complaints were upheld. PPI is no longer being sold with the product, but as complaints continue to be upheld by the firms, the FOS, and the courts ; more mis-selling is being identified. I don't think we will ever know the true proportion of mis-selling ( in numbers or cost ) ; but for reasons listed above, it is likely to be more than the reported proportion.GeoffAvogadro (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UK Specific[edit]

This article appears to be concerned with U654K specific issues. Should this not be clearer in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.48.225 (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing into a worldwide view is not possible, I think, thus changing the article and possibly the title to Payment Protection Insurance (United Kingdom) would be a good idea. Jhschreurs (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The PPI 'problem' is mostly a UK issue. There would only really need to be a PPI (UK) article if the articles needed to be separated (we dont disambiguate/qualify in titles where there is only one article). It would make more sense to alter the article to reflect the UK position primarily with a 'PPI Worldwide' subsection. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the idea of somehow making this a UK page, with a reference to the rest of the world.GeoffAvogadro (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Payment protection insurance is not unique to the UK. Such insurance is also offered in the United States, and the article contains a section describing this. I don't see why it would be considered difficult to describe payment protection insurance without making the article UK specific. Such insurance is also offered in Canada (see here for an example of someone selling such insurance in Canada). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy POV[edit]

The first paragraph of the controversy section says that 'sometimes' the consumer is at fault in buying the insurance, but the fact it does not at least temper this with the point that 'sometimes' the bank is at fault means it is not NPOV. Given that there is now massive evidence of mis-selling, resulting in Billions of GBP in payouts, it should be clear throughout that it is widely accepted that 'mis-selling' rather than 'mis-buying' has been at the root of the controversy. Someone should rewrite that first paragraph as a matter of urgency. For that matter, much of the article reads as though written from the POV of someone in the financial services sector, the style is often defensive, from the introduction onward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.5.64.141 (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tone[edit]

Some parts of this article sound like an advert for making PPI claims. 82.153.35.70 (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time Line[edit]

Does anybody know when this product was first sold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.144.230 (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I'm not sure if any of this is useful for the page, but :- 1) The FCA website lists :- a) PPI refunds and compensation : https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/payment-protection-insurance/monthly-ppi-refunds-and-compensation b) Fines ( including for PPI complaint mis-handling ) : https://www.fca.org.uk/search-results?search_term=fines%20for%20complaint%20mishandling 2) Lloyds Bank PPI provision : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/lloyds-bank-sets-aside-another-350m-for-ppi-scandal-bringing-total-bill-to-173bn-a7623391.html GeoffAvogadro (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]