FSA censures UK banks over unclear information
The UK's airwaves and newspapers were full of articles about payment protection insurance (PPI) in October, after the Financial Services Authority scolded banks for failing to "treat customers fairly" when selling this product to them. According to the FSA, many firms are still not giving customers clear information during the sales conversation, it is not being made clear that PPI is optional, and customers are not getting full information about how much the insurance will cost. Customers are also still not being made fully aware that there may be parts of the policy under which they cannot claim, according to the regulator.
"The bottom line is that customers should come away from the sale having been given the best possible chance of understanding that PPI is optional, what the policy will and will not cover and how much it costs," says the FSA's managing director of retail markets Clive Briault. "On the strength of our findings, the industry has further to go to demonstrate that customers really are being treated fairly in this market."
The consumer banking industry has come in for sharp criticism from the UK government of late. Several months ago, credit card companies and banks were told to lower their fees for late payments. Fees for clearing bounced checks are also being examined.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Esma denies need for new competitiveness mandate
MEP wants explicit requirement; Esma official says it’s already covered in existing rulebook
US regulators cut FRTB’s IMA capital hit by 59%, Isda finds
Trade body pushes for further changes to cross-product netting, default risk charge
US FRTB glitch could spit out negative capital charges
Effort to recognise risk diversification between IMA and standardised approach went too far
Euronext, LCH back Esma as exchange super-regulator
National oversight hurts Europe, exchange officials say – but some are not ready to accept a single watchdog
Double, but no trouble? CVA capital hit may lack clout
Industry opinion mixed around Basel III endgame derivatives charge
Amid debanking drama, banks try to say ‘no’, safely
A basic risk management tool – the ability to turn a customer away – has become a political football
Erba myth: will US banks choose new capital measure?
B3E gives US banks a dilemma – adopt expanded risk-based approach, or a new standardised alternative
Illiquid assets pricing still needs expert judgement, say banks
EU regulators want more transparency in valuations, but some asset prices remain elusive