Latest news with #financialombudsman
RNZ News
6 days ago
- Automotive
- RNZ News
Rise in insurance complaints linked to cost-of-living crisis
Two-thirds of the disputes investigated were about general insurance, including house, contents, vehicle and travel insurance. Photo: 123rf People who are paying higher premiums for their insurance may be expecting more from their policies in return and being disappointed when they don't get it, the insurance and financial ombudsman says. The scheme investigated a record 600 disputes between consumers and financial service providers, such as insurers, in the year to 30 June, up 25 percent from the year before. It received 4293 inquiries and complaints. Insurance premiums have risen significantly in recent years. Stats NZ figures showed in March last year house insurance was up almost 25 percent compared to the previous year, contents insurance up about 28 percent and car insurance up almost 23 percent. Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman Karen Stevens said many cases were resolved quickly, but a growing number were unresolved even after they had gone through financial service providers' internal processes. She said they would then need formal investigation by the Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman (IFSO) scheme. Stevens said part of the increase could be due to the cost-of-living crisis, and expectations about what policies should cover when premiums had risen. Two-thirds of the disputes investigated were about general insurance, including house, contents, vehicle and travel insurance. Stevens said in one case a man complained that there were problems with his Range Rover, which was stolen and then recovered. The insurer covered $37,000 in repairs, but the man said there were other problems like the air conditioning not working, water damage and possible meth contamination. But assessors said the problems were pre-existing or unrelated. "The vehicle was recovered and was repaired in accordance with the repair condition in the policy, and the insurer had paid these costs," Stevens said. "The IFSO scheme can only consider whether the insurer had correctly applied the terms and conditions of the policy to the claim." She said, in this case, the insurer had met its obligations. But she said it showed the importance of understanding what a policy would cover. "It's important to understand that insurers rely on evidence," Stevens said. "If you disagree with a claim decision, you must prove that there was damage missed, or that the settlement is unreasonable." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Times
01-07-2025
- Business
- Times
I mistakenly paid my late dad's £8,600 debt. Now HSBC won't give it back
In June 2022 I made a mistake and paid HSBC more than £8,600 to clear my late dad's debt, thinking that it was the responsibility of surviving relatives to do that. I later discovered that I didn't need to take on that responsibility and I've been chasing the bank for almost two years for a refund. I am really at my wits' end with it. I was the executor of my dad's estate, so when he died I was responsible for sorting out his finances. I had never had this role before, and found this process not only difficult, but traumatic and stressful on top of my grief. There were two outstanding credit card debts in his name. One was worth about £6,000 with NatWest, and the other £8,639 with HSBC (via a John Lewis credit card). I didn't want this debt hanging over my widowed mother's head while we waited for probate to be granted, which I know can take up to a year, so I decided to pay the debts myself, thinking that I could later recover the funds from his estate. I also thought it was my responsibility as executor to clear this debt. However, I later discovered that there was nothing left in my father's estate, apart from the family house he owned with my mother. That meant that there were no funds in the estate for me to get my money back. I asked NatWest and HSBC for a refund in June 2023. NatWest paid the money back promptly, but HSBC didn't. I issued a formal complaint in June last year, but got nowhere. In January of this year, I complained to the financial ombudsman, but I was told that it couldn't help me, because the credit card was in my father's name. I now don't know where to turn. Could you help?Name and address supplied • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts I was very sorry to hear of the loss of your father. Dealing with the death of a parent is hard enough, and dealing with the admin that comes with a bereavement only adds to the upset. You're not alone in finding this process difficult. More than 680,000 bereaved relatives have trouble dealing with this sort of admin every year, according to the charity Marie Curie. You paid your dad's debts with good intentions, only to discover there was no way to get the money from his estate. Relatives are not personally responsible for clearing any outstanding debts of a loved one, unless they acted as a guarantor or took out a joint loan together. If there isn't enough money or assets in an estate to pay the debts, they will usually be written off. HSBC did not refund the money because it no longer had any information about your dad's account. That is because NewDay took over from HSBC as the provider of John Lewis Partnership credit cards in 2022. So when you asked HSBC to return your funds the following year, there was nothing on the bank's system about your dad. The bank has still apologised, however, for taking so long to get to the bottom of this and has refunded you the £8,600 and paid £500 compensation. HSBC said: 'We are sorry for the issues the executor has faced in getting a refund on the payment he made on his late father's credit card, which we appreciate relates to a really difficult time.' • EDF has sent debt collectors over a £3,000 bill we don't owe I bought Amazon gift cards from my local Sainsbury's store in November as a Christmas present for my grandchildren. After realising that I had bought too many, I decided to keep a £200 gift card for myself. I didn't get around to using it until March, because I went away on a two-month cruise in January. When I finally opened it, I realised that the code needed to redeem the money was illegible because two letters had been scrubbed off. I thought Amazon was responsible for refunding me for the faulty card, so I contacted its customer service department. I spent two months chasing for an update before Amazon finally emailed in April to say that it was the responsibility of Sainsbury's to refund me. I immediately emailed the supermarket to ask for my money back. I was told to visit my local branch where I bought the gift card, but the manager told me that it wasn't the shop's responsibility to issue a refund. I'm now stuck between Amazon and Sainsbury's — please could you help? Ke, Bromley • Fraudster stole my identity and went on £900 shopping spree While gift cards can seem like a great idea, they can quickly become a nuisance. They usually come with an expiry date, so there's a risk of losing the money if they are forgotten about, or lost down the backseat of a car (which once happened to me). If the retailer behind the gift card goes bust, it is also unlikely you'll get your money back. I also hear of situations where customers, like yourself, are stuck in limbo if they buy a faulty gift card from a different company to the one at which the gift card can be spent. And it is not uncommon for both companies to blame each other. As to which company should refund you, it usually depends on the terms and conditions set by the party that sold the gift card. In your case, Sainsbury's said it worked with Amazon to resolve your case, and now your Amazon account has been credited with £200 for you to spend. Amazon said: 'Even though customer satisfaction is our utmost priority, we recognise that we are not perfect and we are sorry for the inconvenience.' I felt that it shouldn't have taken two months for Amazon to have answered a simple question. But Sainsbury's should also have done more to ensure you got your money back. After all, it was the one which sold you the faulty gift card. Your case is a great reminder that you should not take no for an answer if companies try to shirk their responsibilities when it comes to faulty goods. • £1,027,659 — the amount Your Money Matters has saved readers so far this year If you have a money problem you would like Katherine Denham to investigate email yourmoneymatters@ Please include a phone number
Mail & Guardian
24-06-2025
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
Financial Ombud puts R328m back into consumers' pockets
The National Financial Ombud Scheme South Africa (NFO) has placed R328.5 million back into the pockets of aggrieved consumers in its first year of operation as a unified ombud scheme. The National Financial Ombud Scheme South Africa (NFO) has placed R328.5 million back into the pockets of aggrieved consumers in its first year of operation as a unified ombud scheme. This was according to the NFO's inaugural annual report, released on Friday, which detailed 35 855 consumer complaints processed between 1 March and 31 December 2024 across the scheme's four divisions: banking, credit, non-life insurance and life insurance. 'This recovery of monies has helped individuals and families regain lost financial stability, reinforcing the institution's role as a guardian of justice in financial services,' head ombud and NFO CEO Reana Steyn said. 'The NFO has continued to solidify its role as a pillar in the South African landscape that ensures access to financial consumers to transparent and effective resolution of disputes.' The banking division was the top performer in terms of speed of resolving complaints, with an average case turnaround time of 52 days. It recovered R29.1 million, closing 11 535 of the 15 412 complaints it received. The life division finalised 5 977 cases, recovering the bulk of funds for the period, totalling R202.8 million, for consumers. Funeral benefit disputes dominated the caseload, accounting for 45% of all complaints, followed by poor service or administration (34%). Lead ombud for the division Denise Gabriels said the most common complaints related to claims being denied (56%) followed by complaints about poor service or administration (34%). Top insurers by complaint volume included Old Mutual (628), Liberty (399), Hollard (259), Metropolitan (216) and Sanlam (188). The division had the longest average case resolution time at 152 days. Banking division head Nerosha Maseti said, despite significant structural changes within the ombud scheme, the division had managed to maintain consistency and a commitment to fair outcomes. Capitec drew the most complaints (1 203), accounting for 20% of all banking complaints, in line with its position as the bank with the largest customer base. FNB followed with 1 017 cases (17%), then Standard Bank (998), Nedbank (881) and Absa (812). Findings in favour of complainants ranged between 13% and 22%, with Capitec and Nedbank both recording the highest consumer success rates at 22%. Fraud continued to top the list of complaint categories, accounting for 30% of all banking cases. Other leading issues included maladministration and complaints from debt-stressed consumers. The most disputed products included current accounts, personal loans, savings accounts, credit cards and home loans. The credit division handled 2 040 cases, achieving positive outcomes for consumers in 49% of them. The division recovered approximately R2.4 million, with the Retail Credit Solutions Group topping the list of institutions by complaint volume at 243 cases (17%). OPCO 365, Edcon Limited and DMC Debt Management were also high on the list, each with more than 120 cases opened. Credit division ombud lead, Howard Gabriels, said his office's investigations uncovered systemic issues during the year. 'A serious concern emerged regarding the application of payments on credit accounts where VAS [value-added service] charges, such as airtime or insurance add-ons, were not considered in determining the minimum monthly payments,' Gabriels said. 'This led to growing balances despite customers paying what they believed to be the full amount due. Following our intervention, the affected credit provider agreed to write off inappropriate balances and amend its internal policy to ensure VAS charges are included in future minimum payment calculations.' According to his office, this finding highlights the importance of oversight in an environment where vulnerable consumers often find themselves subjected to obscure or poorly explained charges that can deepen indebtedness. The non-life insurance division closed 9 289 cases and recovered R94.1 million for consumers. Head of the division, Edite Teixeira-McKinnon, said the majority of complaints stemmed from motor vehicle insurance claims (42%). 'The primary reason for complaints under this motor category of insurance was claims rejected on an exclusion in the policy, the leading exclusion being the failure to prevent or minimise loss or damage, also known as a lack of due care or recklessness,' Teixeira-McKinnon said. Homeowners' insurance disputes accounted for 27% of complaints with the most common incidents being damage incurred during natural disasters (40%). Other top concerns were burst water apparatus (16%) and theft/burglary (8%). Rejections due to gradual deterioration, lack of maintenance and disputes over the quantum of claims were common. The insurers with the most formal complaints lodged were Santam Limited (684), Standard Insurance Limited (632), Old Mutual Insure (613), Absa Insurance (560) and Discovery Insure (501). NFO Board chairperson Haroon Laher said the organisation was committed to consumer protection in the face of powerful financial players. 'Bravery in anything we do does not merely mean facing the loudest, or sometimes the most powerful, voices. It requires those involved to listen to the quietest whispers of those who have been wronged,' Laher said. 'It is this very courage, carried out through acts of bravery, that will define the NFO in what it does and achieves.' Four legacy ombud schemes, including the Ombud for Banking Services, the Credit Ombud, the Short-Term Insurance Ombud and the Long-Term Insurance Ombud, were combined into a single centralised platform in 2024. The services of the ombud are offered free of charge to consumers who can file complaints via its website
The Sun
18-06-2025
- Business
- The Sun
Millions who were set to get up to £70 in compensation from Mastercard could now be waiting months for payment
MILLIONS of Brits who are eligible for compensation from Mastercard could be forced to wait months for the payment. The credit card company has agreed to a £200million settlement which could mean you are owed money for purchases made years ago. 1 Around 47million customers could receive compensation of up to £70 each after a landmark legal victory in May. But it could be months until the money is paid out. This is because Innsworth is now trying to challenge how the funds will be shared, according to Money Saving Expert. Innsworth is a business that helps to fund legal claims, in exchange for a share of the winnings. But in this instance, Innsworth said the Tribunal that approved the settlement "made a series of errors in its judgement" when deciding how much of the money should be given to Innsworth. The company has now filed a legal claim called a judicial review to try and get a higher amount. As a result of the new case, the launch of the online claims portal will be delayed, so payouts will also be pushed back. Meanwhile, if Innsworth wins its case and gets more of the £200million, it could reduce the amount of money customers get. When was the legal challenge launched? Walter Merricks, a former financial ombudsman, launched the legal claim in 2016. He alleged that 46million British shoppers were ripped off after fees were wrongly levied on transactions made over a 15-year period between 1992 and 2008. .
The Sun
04-06-2025
- Business
- The Sun
Huge change to compensation rules plotted by financial ombudsman after spike in complaints
A HUGE change to compensation rules is being plotted by the financial ombudsman after a spike in complaints. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is proposing to change the interest rate applied to the compensation awarded to consumers, to tie it to the Bank of England base rate. 1 If someone is found to have lost out because of their financial firm's errors, the ombudsman can order the business to pay compensation, plus interest. There are different types of interest businesses can be directed to pay, and one of these compensates consumers for being 'deprived' of money (not having it available to use) such as when it finds a claim has been wrongly turned down by a financial firm. The ombudsman can currently direct businesses to pay 8% interest on top of the compensation for the period their customer was out of pocket. It can also tell a business to pay 8% interest if it does not pay compensation on time. But the service said feedback suggests the interest rate 'could be better aligned with, and reflect, market conditions'. For new complaints submitted to the service, it is recommending changing the interest rate so it tracks against the Bank of England's average base rate plus one percentage point. The base rate would be calculated as an average rate over the period that the money was due until the date redress payment is made. The consultation is gathering feedback on this recommendation as well as other potential options and proposals for implementation. The Bank of England base rate currently sits at 4.25%, its lowest level in two years. Economists have speculated that two more reductions could happen this year. James Dipple-Johnstone, interim chief ombudsman at the FOS, said the service welcomes feedback 'on whether our proposed new interest rate strikes the right balance between simplicity, fairness and proportionality". The consultation will run until July 2 and the service said further proposals around its service will be brought forward in the summer.
