Clydesdale Bank fined £20,678,300 for serious failings in PPI complaint handling
Posted on: April 15th, 2015 | Author: crystaladmin
Clydesdale Bank Fined for Serious Failings in PPI Complaint Handling – Crystal Legal Services Investigates
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has today fined Clydesdale Bank Plc (Clydesdale) £20,678,300 for serious failings in its Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) complaint handling processes between May 2011 and July 2013.
This is the largest ever fine imposed by the FCA for failings relating to PPI.
In mid-2011 Clydesdale implemented inappropriate policies which meant that its PPI complaint handlers were not taking into account all relevant documents when deciding how to deal with complaints.
In addition, between May 2012 and June 2013, Clydesdale provided false information to the Financial Ombudsman Service in response to requests for evidence of the records Clydesdale held on PPI policies sold to individual customers.
A team within Clydesdale’s PPI complaint handling operation altered certain system print outs to make it look as if Clydesdale held no relevant documents and deleted all PPI information from a separate print out listing the products sold to the customer. These practices were not known to or authorised by Clydesdale’s PPI leadership team or more senior management.
Georgina Philippou, acting director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA said: “Clydesdale’s failings were unacceptable and fell well below the standard the FCA expects. We have been very clear about how firms should treat customers who may have been mis-sold PPI. In ignoring documents it held which were relevant to its customers’ complaints, Clydesdale failed to treat its customers fairly.”
As a result of Clydesdale’s conduct, of the 126,600 PPI complaints decided between May 2011 and July 2013, up to 42,200 may have been rejected unfairly and up to 50,900 upheld complaints may have resulted in inadequate redress for customers.
Clydesdale’s inappropriate policies meant that, for PPI complaints about loans and mortgages which had been repaid more than seven years prior to the date of the complaint, its complaint handlers would not search for any documents on the basis that they fell outside Clydesdale’s seven year document retention period. This was despite the fact that, in a small percentage of cases, relevant documents had not been destroyed and were still readily available. When calculating redress for credit card PPI complaints, handlers ignored those credit card statements that Clydesdale held for the period before the year 2000.
Debbie Crosbie, acting chief executive of Clydesdale, said: “We got this wrong and I am sorry for that. We deeply regret any instance which led to the Financial Ombudsman Service receiving incorrect or incomplete information from us.”
The FCA also found that complaint handlers were failing to identify cases where the PPI policy sold was unsuitable for the customer, and found deficiencies in the training and monitoring of complaint handlers.
Clydesdale will be reviewing all PPI complaints handled prior to August 2014 and offering redress to any customers impacted by these failings. If Clydesdale had not agreed to settle the case early, qualifying for a 30% discount, the FCA would have fined it £29.5m.