Time was when a compensation case went one of two ways; no payout or full payout. But part nationalised bank, Lloyds, and other lenders are avoiding expensive mis sold PPI refunds by using a third option – a partial payout.
As you read this ‘upheld in part’ is being printed on thousands of refund letters in bank offices across the UK and it’s being used to save billions of pounds in compensation.
Limiting the damage
We’re seeing more and more ‘upheld in part’ mis sold PPI offers from banks with around 10% off the full refund amount. It may not sound like much but take 10% off the estimated total refund bill and you’re looking at a saving of over £2bn. With £18bn set aside so far for PPI refunds and the total refund bill estimated at anywhere between £25 and £40 billion, UK banks and lenders are looking at a lengthy and costly period of payouts. By handing out partial refunds it looks like Government-owned Lloyds and other banks have decided to try and limit the damage.
What ‘upheld in part’ means
In an ‘upheld in part’ situation the lender admits to mis selling the entire PPI policy but decides that you should have had some cover and takes the cost of that cover from the refund. It’s like taking a £30 shirt back that you don’t want and the shop giving you £15 and another shirt of it’s choosing, saying that it still thinks you need a shirt. Ludicrous.
What they should be doing is giving you all of the money back or asking ‘do you want us to take the cost of a more suitable policy?’. The (even more) ridiculous thing is: while it may be acceptable to offer another policy if the loan is still active, in most of the cases we come across the loan has been paid off so any cover charged for is completely unnecessary.
An example from a refund letter, this customer had three loans with two ‘upheld in part’ and was owed an additional £1,400 including interest.
It’s easy to think you’ve been fully refunded (and hard to get to the truth)
If the refund letters adequately explained what ‘upheld in part’ means it wouldn’t be so bad, but in my opinion, they don’t. As a result the recipient could easily miss the fact that they have not been refunded the full amount. The picture above shows a refund amount, which may lead people to think that they have received their full PPI refund. In reality they have not only been done out of money that they paid into the policy, but they’ve also not been paid the 8% interest on top as well. A double slap in the face.
To clarify what they’ve done the banks should include a sub-header in the letter titled ‘upheld in part explained’ with a paragraph explaining that they’ve decided that we did mis-sell you PPI, but think that you should have had some cover. As a result we’ve taken some money off your refund to cover the cost of a more suitable PPI policy. It’s still not right, but at least it would be explained and the customer would know that they haven’t got a full refund.
On their radar
The MOJ is aware of ‘partial refunds’ and recently included the topic in their December ‘13 Special PPI Bulletin:
Some banks have been making offers on an ‘alternative redress’ basis/calculation on PPI complaints since early 2013. This is sometimes also referred to as ‘comparative redress’ or ‘partial upheld’.
These offers need to be properly assessed and instructions from clients should be obtained about whether the offer is appropriate. Further information about alternative redress offers can be found on the FOS website at – http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi/redress.html
No going back
But say you knew what ‘upheld in part’ meant and that you were still owed more mis sold PPI money – do you take the smaller lump now or wait potentially another 18 months for the full amount? In our experience most people go for the smaller amount mainly because they may have to wait a while for the full refund.
And once they accept the offer there’s no going back, the bank has the right to keep the extra cash. Either way, if people take the payout or wait for the full amount the bank are saving money – when they should be giving people all of their money back. Moral of the story: beware of ‘upheld in part’ offers and know that if you get one – you are still owed more.
By John Gregory
John writes for a PPIClaimsAdviceline.com as well as a number of financial blogs, he also create content for infographics, FAQ’s and personal finance sites. You can find him on Google+ and Twitter, get in touch – he doesn’t bite. Unless you’ve been mis-selling financial products.