Alliance & Leicester fined £7m over serious PPI failings
LONDON - UK regulator the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has fined Alliance & Leicester a record £7 million ($12.2 million) for the worst case yet of mis-selling payment protection insurance (PPI). The regulator said the UK bank had sold approximately 210,000 PPI policies over three years at an average price of £1,265.
According to the regulator, the bank had failed to give enough information about the PPI or to make it sufficiently clear whether the insurance costs were optional. It instead sought reasons to sell the insurance without considering the consumer's needs, and trained staff to put pressure on customers who queried the inclusion of a PPI package with their loan repayment.
Margaret Cole, FSA director of enforcement, says: "The failings are the most serious we have found. This is reflected in the record PPI fine. It is very disappointing that after three years of regulation we are still finding serious problems in PPI sales."
Alliance & Leicester's fine marks a major enforcement of the FSA's Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) initiative. The regulator has said 2008 is the year of reckoning for TCF. The bank has agreed to write to every customer who took out an unsecured loan between January 14, 2005 and December 31, 2007, prompting them to review their policy against product information sent to them.
The bank will also review relevant rejected complaints and claims and pay compensation to those affected. By co-operating and carrying out these measures, the bank gained a 30% reduction on the full £10 million penalty.
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
EU officials tamp down hopes for bank capital relief
Capital cuts are not a done deal in EC’s review of competitiveness, despite US deregulation
EU regulators clash over ceding supervision to Esma
Belgian and Spanish regulators differ on drive for centralised oversight of cross-border firms
Why Trump’s latest Truth should make TradFi twitchy
Wall Street is becoming the villain in US president’s crypto movie
EBA guidance prompts banks to rethink CSRBB perimeters
Banks will likely have to expand their credit spread risk coverage following recommendations
Market players warn against European repo clearing mandate
Regulators urged to await outcome of US mandate and be wary of risks to government bond liquidity
Esma won’t soften regulatory expectations for cloud and AI
CCP supervisory chair signals heightened scrutiny of third-party risk and operational resilience
BPI says SR 11-7 should go; bank model risk chiefs say ‘no’
Lobby group wants US guidance repealed; practitioners want consistent model supervision and audit
Esma supervision proposals ensnare Bloomberg and Tradeweb
Derivatives and bonds venues would become subject to centralised supervision