The Financial Services Authority (FSA) figures released this week that revealed a massive increase in the number of PPI claims and bank charge refund applications. In total, PPI refund claims rose to 105,000 in the 6 months to June, that’s a 33% increase on the same period last year. The interesting part of it is that the claims keep coming even though there are ongoing test cases and legal struggle, and rightfully so.

Complaints regarding Payment Protection Insurance and bank charges numbered much higher than any other financial issues, with 854,000 made, representing a 22% increase on the same 6 months last year. Banks, as expected faired the worst, receiving over 1 million complaints and by only upholding 35% of them, it’s no wonder the claims keep coming.

Heard of Cattles? They were a lender who gave loans to customers with poor credit ratings and that had been turned away by high street banks. Well, surprise, surprise: it all went the way of the pear for them; their shares are suspended and they’re straddled with a debt of £2.4bn.

To make matters worse, Karma has delivered another blow and now the sub-prime lender is facing a law suit for the alleged mis-sale of payment protection insurance (PPI). A class action has been launched against Cattles by a City institution for the misselling of insurance along with failing to pay-out on insurance claims.

Another cosumer support body has come out and made a case against the bank bossess, saying they should be personally fined if their Institutions are found to have mis-sold PPI to their customers. Adam Phillips, chairman of the Financial Services Consumer Panel (FSCP), has declared he wants the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to hold the most senior executives accountable for the mis-selling.

This is a view shared by many people both inside and outside the banking industry but it’s one that suffered a minor set-back after Barclays won an appeal against the Competition Commission’s proposed PPI ban. One thing’s for sure; if bank executives were held personally accountable and made to pay-out, there’s a lot of Bentley, Jaguar and BMW salesmen out there that may well lose their best customers. Shame.

You can read more about this in the Guardian.

As if it wasn’t bad enough that Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) providers and sellers bundled it in with loans when it wasn’t either asked for, needed, wanted or known about. But now we hear of providers refusing to pay out to those who actually wanted it. Needless to say, this refusal has led to many consumers making PPI claims against their lenders but why wouldn’t they payout in the first-place?

Many providers refused to allow their customers use of PPI because they were in breach of the terms and conditions of the cover. The reasons for customers being in breach included the age of the individual, employment type or maybe an ongoing illness that wasn’t mentioned at the start of the policy. The thing is, these breaches occured because sales staff either didn’t ask the right questions when discussing the cover or quite simply, apart from to get a yes or no – they didn’t discuss it at all.

A Which? investigation has revealed that some PPI claims Companies are advising enquirers not to make a claim themselves for unfair bank charges or mis-sold payment protection insurance (PPI).

Researchers from the comparison site posed as customers interested in making a claim and found that 12 of the 38 Companies asked implied the researchers would be more successful if they used their services rather than claiming on their own. This is especially worrying when you consider an independent claim costs nothing and that this behaviour goes against Ministry of Justice (MOJ) regulations.

As well as issues with the advice given out, there was a few discrepencies with promotional material, as 16 firms professed to have won 90 per cent or more of the cases they’ve handled but where unable to prove it. All in all, this is a wake-up call for all those claims Companies who aren’t putting the customer first.

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is looking for a grass, a snitch, insider info to help it’s case against the Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) Companies.

To find the information they need, the FOS has gone straight the middle men, the brokers of the industry who sell on insurance to customers. They’ve been asked to supply confidential details of distribution agreements they had with insurance providers during the years that protection providers were regulated.

As is expected and despite the fact that more people apply to reclaim PPI payments every day, loan and mortgage brokers are reluctant to blow the whistle on their suppliers. They argue that this could lead to them losing their deal with the lender and restricting them further in an already limited marketplace.

Emma Parker, spokeswoman for FOS, said:

“We are asking for standard things around the commercial agreements that firms had at the time and always try to ensure that we have all the relevant, accurate information”.

As always, where there’s money involved (or a loss of it) there’s going to be a lot of arguing and indecision around the table. But hopefully, the brokers will see that their customers are the UK public, not the lenders.

We all make mistakes and whether you like to admit to them or not they still happen. Heck, even our trusted friends in Government and Banking institutions can make an error or 2 (million) and they definately don’t like to admit to them. Thankfully we have the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in our corner, rooting out the truth. But, shock horror – even they can slip up on occasion.

They recently apologised for giving advice to mortgage payment protection insurance (MPPI) customers that could have resulted in no PPI compensation for unfair changes to their policies. The City regulator made the apology after discovering that staff in contact with small financial firms had misunderstood the terms of the £60m compensation agreement agreed on last week.

Recent industry figures show that more people than ever are asking banks for their Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) payments back. But behind the scenes, more delays on the decision to ban the sale of PPI are brewing after Barclays win their case.

In an appeal led by law firm Clifford Chance, Barclays has won an appeal against a decision by the Competition Commission to ban the sale of PPI alongside credit cards and loans.

You’d think that as one of the UK’s leading banks and after the debacle of unfair charges, mis-sold cover and the thousands of PPI compensation claims that Barclays would let it go. But no, PPI is a billion pound business and they obviously want to keep hold of as much of their cut as possible. What all of this means is that the decision by the Competition Commission will have to be reviewed by… the Competition Commission.

I challenge someone to find me a QUANGO with a backbone.

Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) has been included in a great many loans, including mortgages. What this means is that you could be paying for a policy that you didn’t ask for or want as well as paying back your mortgage. But thankfully, the FSA have stepped in and agreed a £60m package to reimberse all those that have been unfarily sold PPI.

Whether £60m will be enough, only time will tell but it is a big enough figure to get things started. The PPI compensation will be repaid by the Mortgage Payment Protection Insurance (MPPI) providers and is just part of the plan to clean up PPI and give customers their money back. To find out more about the scheme, check out this article in the Financial Times.

We all know Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) has been a massive cash cow for the banks and lenders. They’ve included it in thousands, maybe millions of loans unfairly and without the consumer knowing. But the fight back is truely on and the best bit is, you now have the support of the Government and Financial Ombudsman.

The latest claim numbers show that the Ombudsman received 858 new PPI compensation claims last week, up from 500 a week at the end of 2008.  All in all, over 26,000 claims were made last year and with the test case soon to be concluded, this figure will no doubt keep rising.