Proposed changes to PPI Sales (Payment Protection Insurance)

There has been a proposal by the Competition Commission (CC) to curb Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) Insurance at the point of sale by the provider of a financial product. This is so that there is an increase in competition and and effectively a real choice in the PPI market. In its provisional findings report, the CC concluded that distributors of PPI—such as banks, mortgage providers and credit card providers—face little or no competition when selling PPI to their credit customers.

The details of the proposal are that the distributor of the product can not contact the consumer within 14 days of credit being sold, however consumers can contact the distributor for PPI 24 hours after the sale.
Credit providers will be required to provide a personal PPI quote, which will clearly state the cost of the PPI policy individually and when added to the credit product.
The Competition Commission is also proposing a ban on the sale of single-premium PPI policies, which it says act as a barrier to customers switching and the costs of which are difficult to compare with other PPI policies.
There will also be a requirement on all PPI providers to provide certain information and messages in PPI advertisements which will include the price of their PPI, expressed in a common format of monthly cost per £100 of monthly benefit, and that PPI is optional and available from other providers.
A requirement on all PPI providers to provide an annual statement for PPI customers,including information similar to that provided in the personal quote, to encourage customers to review their policy annually and make it easier for customers to decide whether to switch.

PPI is a very useful tool however there has been problems with this products as previously discussed in this blog. This is the very economic climate that consumers need this type of product the most and any information that gives the consumer choice and options by introducing transparency should be welcomed

Sale and Rentback code of practice

There has been a number of stories reported in the media about problems with the practice of sale and rent backs and although a very useful option for many, with many Win: Win situations created. However a minority of the companies set up in this market have unscrupulous practices which have been widely reported and subsequently there has been various calls for regulation of the sale and rent back market.

This has given rise to a number of organisations who have been formed to introduce self-regulation and a code of practice. The main ethical code of practice operators in the market are:

http://www.propertybuyersassociation.org/

The Property Buyers Association (PROBAS) was established by established companies such as by A Quick Sale Limited, UK Property Buyers and North East Property Buyers.


http://www.nlarentback.org.uk/

NLA RentBack (formerly NASARB) is part of the National Landlords Association (NLA), the leading independent national organisation for private residential landlords.


http://www.rentbackcharter.com/

The Rent Back Charter Association is a not for profit company that has been formed by a number of individual prominent below market value investor.

Colossal Exit Penalties for With-Profit funds

It Gets Worse! There is bad news for anyone who has investments in the form of a With-Profit policy. These With-Profits policies are equity-linked saving schemes and due to the current turbulence in the stock market, it is natural for some people to want back their money by exiting this type of investment and cashing-in on the policy. However it does not seem to be convenient for the financial service providers as they would like to keep your money too!

To this effect, they are relying on their 'small print' to introduce a Market Value Reduction (MVR) or as some providers call it the market Value Adjustment (MVA)- the adjustment is only one way and that is downwards!

In an ideal world the With-Profit policies should smooth out the ups and downs as in the better years they build up some reserves so that they can be paid out in poor years. This does not seem to be the case for the majority of providers who are all relying on the MVR.

The Market Value Reductions that have come in force by all the providers are massive and they effectively 'kill' off your already dwindling investment. The providers have introduced whatever percentage deduction they see fit to 'stabilise' their fund, typically these are currently at around 20%.

For example- you have a policy where you have a valuation that states £20,000, however when you come to surrender this, the provider applies a typical Market Value Reduction and you only get back £16,000. The value of the investments have fallen and you get a MVR applied - a real double Whammy!

There are also many other individuals who have invested in bonds, hoping that they would provide a guaranteed income and /or capital growth. Most are now finding that they have next to nothing as a return on their investment and even in some cases that they have lost some of their initial capital.

The following is a list of bonds that are commonly problematic for some individuals

a) Fixed term Investment Bonds
b) Growth Bonds
c) High Income Bonds
d) Guaranteed Investment Bonds
e) Stock Market Guaranted Bonds
f) Capital Investment Bonds

If you wish to discuss a financial compensation claim on any investment and you believe you have been mis-sold/advised then contact me in confidence and I can put you in touch with experts who can assist.

email me on info@easy4life.com

Reclaim back you business bank charges

Many banks are now paying compensation for business banking charges, as businesses claim back money that the bank has charged them in unfair fees.
If your business breaks any of the terms and conditions associated with its bank account, for example, if you exceed your overdraft limit, the bank will charge your business. The law is clear that any charges by the bank must reflect the actual costs of damages incurred, but many banks charge more money than they should. Estimates of the maximum amount that any bank can justifiably charge is usually about £2.50 whereas charges are commonly about £30.

Many people have already successfully recovered all of the charges plus interest that occurred in the past six years on their current business accounts as well as closed bank accounts and (Six years is as far back as you can go in the courts).

You can do this too, whether you're claiming against your bank's charges or your business credit card. Compensation claims can be made independently or through independent claims specialists. There are several advantages to making a claim through an independent company: You will save time and money as most companies do everything on your behalf. Most companies operate on a no win-no fee basis. If the case goes to court you will receive advice and representation in court, and any necessary fees will be underwritten.

I can put you in touch with a expert financial claims management company that has a nationwide coverage and specialises in reclaiming unfair bank charges, providing: A No Win No Fee Service Expert friendly advice Handling your case from start to finish.

Email me on info@easy4life.com

Don't get crunched: Consider a management franchsise in health care

An outstanding franchise opportunity in homecare services.

One of the very few industries at all fronts - demographics, economics etc. that is doing well is the health care industry and by grabbing this great opportunity you can avoid going through a boom and bust approach in business and completely bypass the credit crunch.

A home care business is such an outstanding proposition that it grows year on year regardless of other market forces and industries also regardless of the state of the general economy. If you are looking for a business opportunity and have the necessary management skills and entrepreneurship and motivation, then talk to me to realise your ambitions.

You need to be able to invest £12,000 (excluding working capital), have a firm commitment to owning, operating and developing your own business and a desire to deliver the very best service possible to some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

Contact Safaraz Ali initially be email: info@easy4life.com

The FSA to regulate Secured Loans?

There has been a number of associations and others involved in the secured loan market who have began thinking openly and discussing the future regulation of the secured loans sector and specifically whether the Financial Services Authority (FSA) should regulate secured loans.

The secured loan market is currently regulated by the Consumer Credit Act, with firms accountable to the Office of Fair Trading, the political climate at the moment is that secured loans need to be regulated by the 'super regulator' the FSA, as it only has the infrastucture and setup to monitor the Secured Loans market.

Some secured loans operators lenders and packagers do not think that at this stage that the FSA should be regulating secured loans as the industry is self-regulating itself fairly well and above the self-regulation the consumer has the protection of Consumer Credit Act to rely on as well.

However overall the opinion is divided and it doesn't seem that we are going to get regulation in the secured loans market in the near future.

Pre-action protocol for mortgage possession claims

Residential mortgage lenders will be required to have complied with the pre-action protocol in all
mortgage possession claims commenced in England and Wales from 19 November 2008.

The pre-action protocol is designed to encourage parties to exchange information at an early stage, to encourage early settlement of cases or where that cannot be avoided, more efficient case management.

Lenders will be expected to demonstrate that they have tried to discuss and agree alternatives to repossession when borrowers get into trouble with their mortgage repayments. If a case reaches court, lenders will be required to tell the court precisely what they have done to comply with the protocol. It does not alter parties existing rights and obligations although the overall aim of the government has been to help make repossessions a last resort.

The key points of the pre-action protocol are:

· It applies to all first and second charge lending over residential property.
· Lenders will be required to tell the court precisely what they have done to comply with the protocol
· If a lender rejects a proposal for payment of the arrears it must give written reasons to the
borrower within 10 working days.
· The lender should consider not commencing proceedings where the borrower has applied for mortgage payment protection insurance, has a reasonable expectation of eligibility, and can cover the excess, also where the borrower has demonstrated the property has, or will be, put on the market at an appropriate price or has submitted a genuine complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service about the potential possession claim.

Where the lender decides not to postpone possession proceedings in any of the
circumstances described it must inform the borrower of the decision with reasons not less
than 5 working days before commencing proceedings

Additionally, there are provisions requiring lenders to consider reasonable requests from the borrower for a change of payment date, to respond promptly to a borrower’s proposal for payment. The parties should take all reasonable steps to discuss with each other, or their representatives, the cause of the arrears, the borrower’s financial circumstances and proposals for repayment of the arrears.


For more information visit:
http://www.civiljusticecouncil.gov.uk/files/Mortgage_Pre-Action_protocol_21_Oct.pdf