Leading article: A victory for bank customers
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.It is nearly eleven months since The Independent first exposed the multibillion-pound profits made by Britain's lending institutions from the selling and mis-selling of Payment Protection Insurance to borrowers.
The insurance was sold as an "add-on" to customers who were often unaware that much cheaper cover was available elsewhere. Some institutions charged premiums without explicitly informing borrowers; others offered guarantees to cover loans in the event of unemployment or illness to the self-employed and to the ill, who would not qualify for help in any event. We described it as nothing less than a "protection racket".
To end these sharp practices, we recommended some simple regulations which would force banks and loan providers to show clearly the costs of any policy, spell out any exclusion and give customers' comparisons with independent providers.
Yesterday, the Competition Commission, observing that banks, mortgage, and credit card providers faced "little or no competition" when offering the insurance to clients, broadly adopted these suggestions.
When the rules are enforced, banks will be prohibited from promoting PPI for 14 days after funds are borrowed, customers must be informed that other insurance is available and banks must provide an annual statement to encourage customers to review their policy provision.
This is no small victory for consumers who have used their collective muscle to demand the repayment of improperly sold policies, at one stage making nearly 500 complaints every week to the Financial Ombudsmen Service. Lenders, meanwhile, have been humiliated: the Financial Services Authority has imposed fines totalling more than £10m.
While this is gratifying, million-pound fines offer a slender disincentive to banks that have made billions, so we welcome rules to curb the lenders' excesses. The credit crisis has ended the era of "light-touch" regulation for the exotic financial arrangements of our large banks, but the PPI scandal shows that the authorities must pay no less attention to what they get up to on the high street. And it is in all of our interests to demand to see the small print.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments