FAQ: Payment Protection Insurance FAQ's

Payment Protection Insurance Press Coverage

Since the discovery of the situation regarding mis-sold PPI, press coverage for this product has been prolific. Whilst the insurance is not always bad itself, the way in which it was sold to customers was often unethical, resulting in the current bad press.

The positive side of the current press coverage is that it is easier for individuals to discover whether or not they have been affected by the situation.

By having the situation explained so vocally, potential claimants are able to understand the situation surrounding PPI with greater detail, helping them to determine whether they are entitled to a claim or not.

Alongside the coverage relating to how to claim, there have also been numerous reports on the actions of lenders and revelations of PPI claim statistics. Following the fall-out from the scandal a number of lenders and banks were criticised for delaying the claiming process – causing claimants to face long waits for their ruling and potential compensation.

Cases are referred to Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) body when they are rejected by the lender – something which is said to happen for a number of complaints. However, the FOS was said to have an 89% success rate when settling these claims during 2009, meaning claimants will not lose out.

With all of this information close at hand, press coverage of the PPI scandal has ensured that all individuals are aware of the situation and how it can affect them. Claiming for PPI is not associated with any stigma or negativity, with many people being vocal about their right to claim for their losses.

Press coverage for some of the pivotal events in the PPI mis-selling scandal includes the following:

  • 1998 – Which? publish information on the low value of PPI, raising some of the issues of the product for the first time.
  • 1998-2005 – newspapers such as The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph report on the issue surrounding PPI, sparking further interest in product.
  • 2006 – the scandal becomes more public after the Citizen’s Advice Bureau lodged an official complaint with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and Financial Services Authority (FSA). This complaint led to an investigation by the OFT, resulting in further complaints and press coverage.
  • 2007-2008 – the scandal continued to gather pace as numerous lenders were fined by the OFT. Details of these fines were reported by the press and emphasised the situation surrounding PPI. Which? published research on PPI, highlighting the case for victims of mis-selling.
  • 2011 – the scandal continued to dominate headlines and publications such as The Daily Telegraph, even produced a timeline of events for the situation. Personal stories and case studies also become popular knowledge, being used to demonstrate the effects mis-sold PPI could have.