Last August, the Financial Conduct Authority had granted banks passage from the troubles brought by mis-sold payment protection insurance. Consumer groups had been outraged by the decision because the City watchdog had given financial institutions, the ones who had caused the fiscal issues for consumers in the first place, passage for their errors. In response, the FCA said it will sanction all banks incapable of simplifying their PPI claims process.
Here are three ways banks should improve their procedures for their clients.
Claims management companies had called the attention of consumers to having a possible wrongly-sold insurance on top of their loan or mortgage, allowing them to make a market out of the situation. If banks will contact consumers they believe had PPI in the first place, they will be saving themselves from administration costs and the time of their consumers.
In 2013, an undercover journalist found claims assistance center agents were briefed about rejecting all consumer complaints. It led to heavy criticism towards particular financial institutions and a re-evaluation of all claims procedures. If firms genuinely assisted their customers, their expenses will be lower because they can cut down on administrative costs spending.
In the last seven years, banks have only “dragged their feet” to address the complaints of consumers, according to former FOS Chief Ombudsman Natalie Ceeney. Firms also faced huge backlash from delaying complaint resolutions, which increased their administrative costs. It is clear that the transparency of processes must be established to guarantee the lower expenses of firms and efficient resolution of consumer issues.