Jump to content


BankFodder

Computers make PPI decisions and write rejection letters

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 600 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

 

Victims of Britain’s biggest mis-selling scandal are having their compensation claims rejected —by computers.

 

Money Mail can reveal that the Financial Ombudsman Service is relying on computer software to decide whether banks should pay redress to people who were flogged payment protection insurance (PPI) alongside their credit cards or loans.

 

We have seen documents in which senior figures at the Ombudsman, which settles disputes between banks and customers, state that PPI case documents are fed into a computer programme which generates a ‘suggested outcome’.

 

They admit that although staff can make decisions on whether to force banks to pay redress, they almost always use the verdict spewed out by the computer.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-5653351/Computers-decide-PPI-victims-payout-explosive-documents-show.html#ixzz5DfSdNhqs

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-5653351/Computers-decide-PPI-victims-payout-explosive-documents-show.html


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happen to know this is true because I am involved in my own PPI claim – finally after many years. I'll be writing about it on the forum during the next few months. It's against Lloyds bank.

 

Anyway, my claim has eventually gone to the FOS and I have to say that it has been badly handled. But in terms of the template letters, the adjudicator inadvertently sent me a blank template with nothing filled in – simply the prompts. I knew immediately that this was part of the FOS Navigator system.

 

It was sent to me using my FOS "secure" mailbox. Amazingly I went to access the "secure" mailbox today and it had been emptied of the template and also one or two other messages.

 

I feel that this is interference with my personal data and I think it is an extremely serious breach.

 

I'm not surprised that they are slack and cavalier about the way they have started to handle their decision-making process – but I am extremely shocked that they can enter the someone's secure mailbox and then delete messages.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I happen to know this is true because I am involved in my own PPI claim – finally after many years. I'll be writing about it on the forum during the next few months. It's against Lloyds bank.

 

Anyway, my claim has eventually gone to the FOS and I have to say that it has been badly handled. But in terms of the template letters, the adjudicator inadvertently sent me a blank template with nothing filled in – simply the prompts. I knew immediately that this was part of the FOS Navigator system.

 

It was sent to me using my FOS "secure" mailbox. Amazingly I went to access the "secure" mailbox today and it had been emptied of the template and also one or two other messages.

 

I feel that this is interference with my personal data and I think it is an extremely serious breach.

 

I'm not surprised that they are slack and cavalier about the way they have started to handle their decision-making process – but I am extremely shocked that they can enter the someone's secure mailbox and then delete messages.

 

Definitely a breach as they have obligations with regards automated decision making which obviously they have not complied with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their story is that the Navigator software doesn't make decisions. It simply "suggests" outcomes. However the whistleblower has said that in practice he/she has never come across a single case where the adjudicator has rejected the decision made by the computer.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn’t matter. They are making a decision based purely on the automated processing and therefore need to comply with the relevant sections of the DPA. The GDPR will cause them to evaluate it and they will have to change their procedures I predict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...