Lloyds most complained about bank

LONDON Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:47pm GMT

A Lloyds bank sign hangs outside a branch in London February 24, 2012. REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth

A Lloyds bank sign hangs outside a branch in London February 24, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Stefan Wermuth

Related Topics

Quotes

   

LONDON (Reuters) - Part-nationalised bank Lloyds received the most complaints among UK financial companies in the second-half of last year, data from the country's Financial Ombudsman body showed Tuesday.

The Ombudsman said the various operations within the Lloyds Banking Group - including the likes of Bank of Scotland and Halifax - got 20,310 complaints from July to December last year.

Barclays got more than 11,500 complaints, MBNA Europe got 9,185 complaints while various operations run by rival part-nationalised lender Royal Bank of Scotland got more than 6,000 complaints.

Most of the complaints were related to the mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI) policies, which led Lloyds to take a 3.2 billion pound provision charge last year to cover having to compensate customers who were mis-sold those products.

These policies were typically taken out alongside a personal loan or mortgage to cover repayment if the borrower was unable to pay due to unemployment, sickness or accident.

But they were often mis-sold to the self-employed or unemployed people who would not have been able to claim, and were also mis-sold to consumers who did not realise they were taking out such a policy.

Lloyds said it had managed to reduce the number of complaints it had received in 2011 by 24 percent from a year ago and continued to work hard to improve customer service.

Britains owns 40 percent of Lloyds and 82 percent of RBS after bailing out both banks during the 2008 credit crisis.

(Reporting by Sudip Kar-Gupta; Editing by Myles Neligan)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
meewaan wrote:
The Financial Service Ombudsman CEO Natalee Ceeney has been turning a blind eye on Paypal’s illegal user agreement for several years.

Ebay bought Paypal and they are using their market dominance to operating a user agreement that breaks the law, Paypal operating an user agreement that given Paypal the right to withhold 20% to 30 % of all your income for 90 days (it is called a rolling reserve and if you dare to complain, Paypal will threaten you that it can shut your account down and then it can keep 100% of your money for 180 days). This is against the Payment Service Regulations 2009 section 73 and the E-Money Regulations 2011 section 39.

Can you imagine if our high street banks keeps 20% to 30% takings of the small retailers for 90 days or 100% for 180 days, this means the margin that many small retailers depend on to pay the staff wages and to restock are being withheld, it virtually means many of them will be forced to shed jobs and probably closed down.

If you are a small retailer and not having a physical shop, you have very little choice but to use Ebay and Paypal which dominate the global virtual high streets.
Information from widipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal shows that
In August 2002, Craig Comb and two others filed a class action against PayPal in, Craig Comb, et al. v. PayPal, Inc.. They sued, alleging illegal misappropriation of customer accounts and detailed ghastly customer service experiences. Allegations included freezing deposited funds for up to 180 days until disputes were resolved by PayPal, and forcing customers to arbitrate their disputes under the American Arbitration Association’s guidelines (a costly procedure). The court ruled against PayPal, stating that “the User Agreement and arbitration clause are substantively unconscionable under California law,” noting their unjustifiable one-sidedness and explicit prohibition of class actions produces results that “shock the conscience” and indicate PayPal was “attempting to insulate itself contractually from any meaningful challenge to its alleged practices”
In a separate class action started in 2002, Paypal paid US$9.25 million payment to members of the class action. Mostof the allegations concerned PayPal’s dispute resolution procedures

Yet it is doing identical theft here in the UK with the Regulators ( the FSA, the OFT) and the Financial Ombudsman all turning a blind eye. It makes one wonder if all of them been wined and dined by the lobbyists of Ebay and Paypal .

Both Ebay and Paypal have moved their UK company registration to the Thieves Haven of Luxembourg. ( they have surely oiled the wheels in Luxembourg of many corrupted Eurocrats). They are not paying tax in the UK. but are using the EU passport scheme to be licensed by the FSA to suck money out from the UK. The Paypal user agreement declares that Paypal is not part of the Luxembourg National Deposit Guarantee Scheme because the e-money is not considered as deposit, yet the law breaking conduct of Paypal keeping 20% to 30% of clients money to 90 days or 100% for 180 days means there are keeping deposit albeit forced ones, in hundred of millions pounds, while generating massive of profits from their law breaking. Financial Service Ombudsman, OFT and FSA are all knowingly exposing hundred of thousands of UK users monies being forcedly kept in Paypal’s Luxembourg bank account with no protection and no redress whatsoever. The Financial Ombudsman slow process virtually means that it makes no point of complaining to the ombudsman – the months it takes to deal with it, has suited Paypal just fine as the monies being withheld are generating interest in Luxembourg for Paypal, the whole aim of its law breaking.

It seems that the financial ombudsman and Paypal has come to an “arrangement” that is financially mutually beneficial to them both while given a pretence to the public that their complaints are being dealt with – Paypal pays a small fine to the Ombudsman ( Ombudsman service is not paid by the Tax payers, they get money from the financial organisations being complaint of), while Ombudsman take its time to investigate to allow Paypal more time to make more from clients monies that are illegally withheld.

Mar 01, 2012 12:38pm GMT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.