“Financial Ombudsman’s PPI Claims Will Decline in 2014-15 from 400,00 to 270,000”

Financial Ombudsman Service

#AceDebtNews says according to the latest Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) newsletter they have forecast volumes of payment protection insurance (PPI) complaints will decline in 2014-15 as it indicated banking and credit complaints are becoming increasingly complex.

PPI ClaimsIn its proposed plan and budget for the next financial year, FOS revealed it expects to resolve a record 320,000 PPI cases, reducing its stock of PPI grievances from 400,000 to 270,000 but warned numbers are likely to remain “substantial”.

The ombudsman announced it intends to tackle 64,000 new banking complaints in 2014-15, as well as another 150,000 new PPI cases at the same time as reducing its budget by 20%.

Tony Boorman, interim chief executive and chief ombudsman, said: “For the last few years our focus has been on building up our capacity to meet the unprecedented challenges of PPI.

“The investment we have made in scaling-up and developing our service is now paying off as we plan for another year of record activity, resolving twice as many PPI cases as we receive. But we’re not out of the PPI woods yet.”

FOS admitted there had been times in the past two years when the organisation received more than 12,000 PPI disputes a week, although numbers have now fallen to around 6,000 cases a week.

The organisation confirmed banking and credit complaints continue to make up the largest area of its work, although the number it has received so far this year is around a quarter lower than it had assumed in its budget for 2013-14.

It warned many of these types of cases are becoming more difficult to resolve as consumers face financial pressures and lenders remain under cost pressures.

FOS has also seen an increase in the number of cases related to various types of short-term credit, including payday loans.

Boorman added: “Across all of our work we continue to hear that people’s dealings with financial businesses remain strained, suggesting a lot more work is required to restore consumer trust in financial services.”

The ombudsman also set out how it will fund its workload, with the announcement it will freeze the case fee paid by businesses at £550, payable only after the 25th case, and will no longer charge businesses the £350 supplementary case fee for PPI complaints.

But FOS warned of a potential shortfall in income for its consumer credit work during 2014-15 and 2015-16, as businesses transfer to the Financial Conduct Authority, which has said it may not recover a levy from companies until 2016-17.

FOS intends to use its consumer credit jurisdiction surplus of £1.7m to offset this and suggested that should a shortage remain it may need to see this recovered through future levies paid by consumer credit firms in 2016-17.

Ace Debt Management Services says: #GetOutOfDebtWithoutBorrowingMoreMoney  

Enhanced by Zemanta

#acedebtnews, #business, #complaint, #consumer, #finance, #financial-conduct-authority, #financial-ombudsman-service, #fiscal-year, #fos, #ombudsman, #payment-protection-insurance, #ppi

Strategic Assessment of Risks to UK Consumers and Markets.

The OFT is seeking comments on its Annual Plan 2013-14 consultation,

The official body of people that govern the issuance of consumer credit licences and their use!

The official body of people who govern the issuance of consumer credit licences and their use!

published today alongside its Strategic Assessment of Risks to UK Consumers and Markets.

The consultation sets out the OFT’s proposed objectives and priorities over the next financial year, its fortieth and final year before the transfer of functions to the Consumer and Markets Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority. The OFT intends to continue to focus on work to make markets work well for consumers and the wider economy, alongside ensuring a rich portfolio of cases is handed over to the new institutions.

The proposed areas of focus are informed by the OFT’s first published Strategic Assessment, which identifies key developments and trends in the macro-economic, regulatory, political and social environment – such as economic challenges, demographic change and technological advances. It considers risks to consumers and markets in this context, taking into account the probability of problems arising and impact, should they occur.

During 2013-14, the OFT plans to prioritise work that reflects the following themes:

  • vulnerable consumers and consumers challenged by the adverse economic climate
  • pricing used as a barrier to fair choice
  • novel and developing markets and business practices
  • public services markets
  • closer working with the economic regulators.

These priorities have been developed in the context of a challenging economic climate and are designed to maximise impact against the backdrop of a reduced OFT budget.

OFT Chairman, Philip Collins, said:

‘In the coming financial year, we will remain focused on delivering outcomes that matter for the consumer and the economy, while also preparing the ground for the transfer of the OFT’s functions and the establishment of the new institutions. Publishing our Strategic Assessment of Risks alongside the Annual Plan consultation makes clear the thinking behind our choice of themes and priorities.’

#business, #consumer, #economics, #economy, #financial-conduct-authority, #government, #office-of-fair-trading, #oft, #philip-collins, #social-sciences

Special Offers Are Not As Special As You Think

English: Frame of an animation by the U.S. Fed...

English: Frame of an animation by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/ecards/phishing/index.html intended to educate citizens about phishing tactics. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Federal Trade Commission is mailing 9,282 refund checks to consumers who were deceived by false promises that they could earn real income if they bought and followed the “Stefanchik Program” to buy and sell privately held promissory notes and mortgages. The FTC alleged that claims made by John Stefanchik and his company, Beringer Corporation, were false and unsubstantiated, and that most consumers made no money at all. The refunds are a result of a court settlement resolving a money judgment against the defendants.

More than $855,000 is being returned to consumers; each payment will be $92.16. Consumers who receive the checks from the FTC’s refund administrator should cash them within 60 days of the date they were issued.

This article provided by the FTC started me thinking about HOW and WHY people click links and sign-up to what seems impossible, on the face of it!

My conclusions were quite revealing as in most cases, people l spoke to say! ” Well it might have been true and l could have made a lot of money! The key reason people apply for any special offer ” It might have been true” but dig a little deeper and you find out that it was only a hope!

I have received a lot of ” Special Offers” look at where they are from and Google website details or even their email in some cases and check it out! Everyone is either offering at a cost per month to give you the perfect way to obtain, information on HOW to make money online!

In fact the only people l have found that make money are those that charge you $79.95 per month and you get a FREE DVD well how can paying $79.95 per month be FREE? So the truth is we BELIEVE what others tell us and we WANT it to make us millions!

REMEMBER: Google AD Words make Google more than you make as every time someone clicks your link, you pay Google $1 and you earn once the person on search to your link ” Buys Your Product” not before.

So WHY do you even THINK these people will be any different and will give you something for nothing!

A UK programme l watch is called Hustle and their favourite phrase is:

” We give people nothing for something and not something for nothing”

Well that answers my question but everyone wants to BELIEVE one day, it will be a truthful SPECIAL OFFER!

#beringer-corporation, #consumer, #federal-trade-commission, #ftc, #google, #john-stefanchik, #safari, #stefanchik-program

More than $723,000 being returned to consumers

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commission. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Federal Trade Commission mailed more than 13,000 refund checks to consumers who were allegedly deceived by a company that claimed it would negotiate with lenders to change the consumers’ mortgages and make them more affordable. To resolve FTC charges, First Universal Lending and its owners agreed to an order banning them from the mortgage relief services business.

The FTC alleged that the operators of First Universal Lending encouraged homeowners to stop making mortgage payments. The defendants charged consumers up-front fees, but then did little or nothing to help them, the agency charged.

The checks were mailed by an administrator working for the FTC. More than $723,000 was returned to consumers. The amount varied based upon the amount of each consumer’s loss. Those who receive checks from the FTC’s refund administrator should cash them on or before October 6, 2012. The FTC never requires consumers to pay money or provide information before redress checks can be cashed. Consumers with questions should call the refund administrator, Gilardi & Co., LLC, at 1-888-251-6825, or visit www.FTC.gov/refunds.

To learn how to avoid mortgage help relief scams, read the FTC’s Mortgage Assistance Relief Scams: Another Potential Stress for Homeowners in Distress and Mortgage Payments Sending You Reeling? Here’s What to Do.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

#confidence-trick, #consumer, #consumer-topics, #federal-trade-commission, #ftc, #limited-liability-company, #mortgage-loan, #unfair-business-practices

Protecting People From Scams – Sweepstakes

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commission. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Federal Trade Commission mailed 503 refund checks to consumers who were allegedly tricked into paying a fee to collect a fake multi-million-dollar sweepstakes prize. The FTC alleged that operators of the scam, collectively known as Prize Information Bureau, sent personalized mailers, some with fictitious government agency names and official-looking seals, to hundreds of thousands of consumers.

The refund checks were mailed by an administrator working for the FTC. More than $183,000 was returned to consumers. The amount varied based upon the amount of each consumer’s loss. Those who receive the checks from the FTC’s refund administrator should cash them within 60 days of the date they were issued. The FTC never requires consumers to pay money or provide information before redress checks can be cashed. Consumers with questions should call the refund administrator, Gilardi & Co., LLC, at 1-888-251-6826, or visit www.FTC.gov/refunds.

To learn how to avoid these kinds of scams, read the FTC’s Prize Offers: You Don’t Have to Pay to Play.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to give information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.  Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

#consumer, #consumer-topics, #facebook, #federal-trade-commission, #ftc, #limited-liability-company, #twitter, #unfair-business-practices

Company Paid $25 Million for Refunds to Settle FTC Charges of Deceptive Advertising

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commission. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Advertising advertising

Advertising advertising (Photo credit: Toban Black)

I decided just recently that it would be useful to my readers to obtain information about cases that being ardently chased for either, malpractice, deception or misleading the public!

So my first post relates courtesy of FTC to deceptive advertising:

Firstly and as usual l will provide the extract and then comment accordingly and ask anyone interested to comment! Also readers can comment or provide their news or views and email me at Ace News Desk

Extract:

In connection with the Federal Trade Commission’s settlement with Reebok International Ltd, a settlement administrator is mailing approximately 315,000 checks to consumers who bought allegedly deceptively advertised toning shoes and apparel from the company. 

Ads for Reebok’s toning shoes claimed that sole technology featuring pockets of moving air creates “micro instability” that tones and strengthens muscles as you walk or run.   

As part of its efforts to stem overhyped health claims, the FTC last year alleged that Reebok deceptively advertised its “toning shoes” by claiming that consumers wearing the shoes would strengthen and tone leg and buttock muscles more than by wearing regular shoes.  Reebok paid $25 million for refunds as part of its settlement agreement with the agency.

The amount each consumer gets back is based on the amount the consumer claimed to have spent on the products.  Consumers will receive approximately 87 percent of the amount on their claim forms that was submitted and approved.  The deadline for filing a refund request has expired. 

Consumers should carefully evaluate advertising claims for work-out gear and exercise equipment.  For more information see:  How’s that Work-out Working Out?  Tips on Buying Fitness Gear.

My Comment:

This is very much that what we are told on that this product does not provide under a simple rule of ” Fit For Purpose” and thus provides the consumer with misleading information! In this case the FTC  has agreed a settlement, in favour of said consumer!

In many cases these types of cases get lost in translation and never get aired, so if you know of any! Be they miscarriages of justice, unfair trading or products that do not live up to what we are told! Please let me know!

 

 

 

 

#25-million, #ace-news, #consumer, #federal-trade-commission, #ftc, #physical-exercise, #reebok, #rocker-bottom-shoe, #settlement