In January 2008, when the FSA fined the HFC Group one million pounds for serious failures when selling Payment Protection Insurance , the Financial Services Industry simply hung its head in its hands and prepared itself for a new storm of anger and grief from the British public. A new scandal. A fresh revolt.

Millions of consumers across the UK who took out loans were also sold a form of protection called Payment Protection. The Insurance is designed to protect those who may fall sick or suffer unemployment by covering the monthly loan repayments. Although on the face of it this might seem a very wise form of protection, the real truth is that the insurance is totally useless in most cases and was simply added on to boost commission and snatch more money off the most vulnerable people in the UK. Alarmingly, the amount of PPI included in monthly repayments can be extremely high and many people had no knowledge as to how much they are paying on a useless product which never will give them any benefit.

The sales technique behind the sale of such protection has been anxiously scrutinised by the FSA in its recent investigation. The sales force of large organisations was not even trained properly. Agents from banks, building societies and loan companies pounced on the vulnerability of people desperate to repay debts and take out loans. Millions simply signed on the dotted line just to make sure the loan went through. Many were told that PPI was compulsory and that it was a condition of the loan. Others had no idea that PPI was being sold with the loan. Some who were fortunate to have been told about PPI were never given enough information about the exclusion clauses and the brutal small print. People with pre existing medical conditions were sold the product and in most cases it would simply not have paid out.

The findings of the FSA are desperately frightening to read. It is evident that millions of vulnerable people have fallen victim to bogus sales pitches and greedy salespeople. The fact that so much trust has been reposed in the consultants is just another example of how British consumers still believe in honest sales practices, only to be left completely misled.

Finally, the Financial Services Industry has come to realise that ‘small print’ cannot be used as a defence to such blatant incompetent sales practices. The fine imposed on HFC could be the start of just one slap on the wrist. Many could follow.

Even if loans have been repaid or settled, any premiums paid for PPI can be reclaimed. It is certainly time to get back what it rightfully yours. It doesn’t matter if you paid off your loan 8 months or even 8 years ago. Provided you had PPI bundled up with the loan you can still claim. Many people who have been successfully compensated didn’t even know if they had PPI on their loans so if you can’t remember it doesn’t matter. The most important step is to stake your claim and demand for what is rightfully yours.

JSK claims are specialists in……..

BANK CHARGES. How the Office of Fair Trading might well have the ‘best forensic point’

The Office of Fair Trading has fought hard over the last few years on behalf of the British consumer. It first battled tooth and nail to ensure that credit card companies reduce their default charges. It then took on a new war against for bank charges. It is a fight which may last a considerable length of time but the OFT has shown that it is prepared to pick up as much ammunition as it can find to get a resounding victory.

Millions of people across the UK have been charged by their bank or building society for the slightest oversights. Bounced cheques, returned debits and even going into the red by a few pence has meant incurring heavy charges.

Recently, the High Court heard eight banks and a building society defend its position on such charges. The Office of Fair Trading put forward a simple case. It stated that the charges are penalties and they are unfair because the actual cost of administrating an error costs no more than a few pounds. The banks argued that the charges were for a service and therefore there was no room for the OFT to intervene. The case was heard by Justice Andrew Smith who described the volume of paperwork to read as an ‘enormous burden’.

Although, there has been much discussion as to which side had the most persuasive argument, the most crucial point was perhaps made by the OFT’s barrister Mr Brian Doctor QC. He stated that the terms and conditions of bank contracts must be in plain and intelligible language. He also boldly emphasised that the banks speak a very ‘different language’ and that terms were often ambiguous and unclear.

Although legal experts have focused on the issue of unfair terms and whether the charges are for a service, the main pillar of any judgment may well be on the issue of whether the bank contract terms and conditions are in plain and intelligible language. It is unlikely that one would expect a customer looking to open a bank account, to sit before a bank manager and read each and every term and condition. If the small print is not clear and hidden in the dark on any bank literature, then the OFT might well have the strongest hand. In fact, some of the banks Counsel accepted that it was one of the OFTs best forensic points. Many banks rewrote their terms and conditions last year but it may be too little too late.

One cannot ignore that whilst the barristers have been rumbling at the High Court, the banks have continued to impose charges. Although there has been a stay on all County Court cases involving claims for bank charges, the customer continue to suffer. The charges have not been frozen and referral fees of £25.00 to £35.00 are still scraping away at the pockets of vulnerable people. Of course, these charges may well be refunded in the future but the short term pain carries far reaching consequences as millions head further into debt with record levels of repossession. The test case has not only given banks a little extra time but has further boosted profits in the meantime.

Financial experts have commented on the possibility of the end of free banking in the UK if the OFT win. That is of little concern today. If banks do start charging to operate bank accounts then consumers will simply take their money elsewhere and foreign banks such ICICI may well pick up the protestors on the way. The consumer has simply lost faith in the industry. The British public is prepared to revolt to get back money and there has been a staggering increase in the number of County Court claims filed against banks. There is no fear and such tenacity to take on large organisations will surely cause ripples across the globe.