Monday, July 9, 2012

Payment Protection Insurance influence upon the workplace market

By Sally Grogan

Two contrasting tales show how work opportunities can be made but also shed through the mis-selling of payment protection insurance.

Firstly, the recruitment company Manpower has said the scandal has caused more than eight thousand further opportunities getting created through banks taking on extra employees to cope with the onslaught of claims from customers looking for compensation for having been mis-sold PPI. Manpower says that 10k are working on payment protection insurance in banks and other financial institutions of whom eight thousand are completely new employees, rather than people who have been transfered in from their usual positions.

This figure is expected to increase more through the coming months with 13% more financial companies intending to recruit further workers rather than cut down. Manpower also estimates the level of payment protection insurance claims and resulting payouts could have a positive impact on the economic climate. Considering the average payout being in the region of 3,000, at least some of this is certain to be spent rather than being put away.

In contrast to the news of a predicted eight thousand further positions, comes reports twelve being shed because of a firm that specialised in PPI complaints having gone bust. The company had been in the middle of being investigated by Trading Standards following hundreds of complaints, but has recently gone into administration.

It charged 250 to process PPI claims for customers and several have complained of paying in advance but not acquiring any payment. Unfortunately, with the firm apparently going bust, clients are worried they will never get their money back.

Reports of this demise follows on from the Financial Ombudsman Service saying last year it was given over 5,600 grievances where no plan had ever been sold and it positioned the blame at the door of claims management companies, which charge upfront for their help and take, according to the FOS, a disappointingly lax procedure for doing the list of questions on behalf of clients.

About the Author:


Post a Comment