Explaining The Logic Behind Lloyds’ Demand For Quicker PPI Direct Redress Deadlines
I’m sure you have been following the latest news on mis-sold PPI’s possible deadline. The FCA had announced that the entire scandal, along with the entire industry built around it, would be kaput by 2018 once it seals the deal in 2016. This means both reputable and rogue claims management companies, which includes our brand HaveIGotPPI.org.uk would have to move to new lines of business.
But why did Lloyds demand a quicker end to PPI rather than sit and be happy it’s about to end by 2018?
Minimise Costs For All Involved
Lloyds’ Finance Director George Culmer explains one logic by saying a shorter time would have people act more quickly. While his statement that “two years” as proposed by the FCA for a deadline is “excessive”, it is not, really.
Shortening the time would mean Lloyds and other lenders can just reject even legitimate claims as it had done in the past. Having a shorter deadline means it could cut costs both for administrative costs and for the FOS bugging them to come out and see they’ve ruled mis-sold PPI erroneously.
That would mean Lloyds and other banks can rebuild capital to possibly boost their PBA mis-selling? Well, all of this is speculation. But as a PPI claims company, a deadline is something we have already expected.
However, lenders are still abound with false promises and veiled motives, as it always would be. Still, claims management companies like us will stick with consumers until 2018, when we can help everyone calculate their potential payment protection insurance refund and finish filing their claim.
Despite a good or bad ending with the 2018 deadline, it appears only the banks would benefit from the entire situation.