The latest UK figures for unemployment show the highest number of people without a job since 1994, with 2.68 million out of work. The figures, released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed some discouraging statistics including:

- 29.7% of youths aged 16 – 24 unemployed

- 8.4% of the economically active population unemployed

- 0.3% rise in umemployment on the previous quarter, a rise of 118,000.

- There were 2.68 million unemployed people

- Highest number of unemployed people since 1994

If you’re employed in the private sector you may be surprised to read that both regular pay and bonuses rose by 1.9% on the same period last year. Of course this is cold comfort for many who face the threat of redundancy and not much good to public sector workers but it does show some positive movement.

Any early signs of a smile emerging may be wiped off your boat race by the predictions of leading analysts, declaring that the UK has already slipped back into recession. On the plus side, it’s the Olympics this year and what better than a national showcase to bind the multi-cultural societies of our great nation (if you’re not proud about your country, it couldn’t help).

If we reported on every discrepancy that was made by an insurer, bank or lender then it would be all we ever wrote about, but a recent fine imposed by the FSA is definitely worth mentioning. The Combined Insurance Company of America (CICA) has been hit with a fine of £2.8m for employing a ‘high-risk’ pay scheme that governed the wages of their sales agents.

The City watchdog slapped CICA with a £2.8m fine

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) said that the way sales staff earned their money led to customers being at risk of being treated unfairly when buying accident and sickness insurance. As a result of the findings, CICA has agreed to look into the way customers are treated and pay compensation to where appropriate.

Most of CICA’s policyholders were self-employed or small business owners with the FSA citing the following business failures that led to the fine:

- Sales staff with less-than-adequate qualifications and missing references

- Failure to ensure that sales staff had the knowledge to provide appropriate advice

- Paying sales agents on a commission-only basis was deemed ‘risky’

- Customer complaints and rule-breaking sales staff where not dealt with adequately

The above issues combined with the £2.8m fine (reduced from £4m after an early settlement) and FSA ruling has resulted in CICA not taking on any new business since October last year.

As 2012 begins and the focus of our nation shifts towards the arrival of the worlds greatest athletes, new figures from the Financial Services Authority (FSA) have revealed that 2011 was just as Olympic as 2012 promises to be. In the first 10 months of last year more than £1 billion in mis sold PPI compensation was paid out according to the financial watchdog, that’s £2,739,726.03 refunded each and every day.

The banks are starting to seriously regret mis selling PPI. There's plenty more people to claim and lots of money to be paid out.

As 2011 progressed; more was paid out each month with the latest figures, for October, revealing it to be the highest month yet for redress with firms paying out £268 million to claimants, that’s £8,645,161.29 paid back every day. However, unlike the 204 countries that take part in the Olympics, just 16 unnamed companies were responsible for the £1 billion in compensation, with the same companies accounting for 92% of all PPI claims in the first six months of 2011.

When it comes to PPI claims UK financial consumers are ahead of other countries in seeking refunds. With over £1bn paid out in 2011 and press coverage increasing, the level of PPI compensation paid out in 2012 is set to smash last years total. When the banks gave up the fight against mis sold PPI it was estimated that more than three million people were in line for compensation. By the end of 2011, 104,597 more people had complained about PPI, but overall; less that 1 million people have been paid out. Despite this, the total bill for mis sold PPI is on target to reach the early forecasts of around £8 billion.

It’s great news that more people are getting back the money that are owed. All we want to know is: were we one of the 16 companies? We’ve definitely helped a lot of people get their money back!

Bank of Scotland has reported a half year loss of £1.4 billion. The bank, of which 84% is owned by taxpayers, is set to cut around 2000 jobs in the next 12 to 18 months in an effort to cut costs and increase profit. RBS has already cut 27,500 jobs since the start of the financial crisis.

The bank had to take a £733 million provision for its exposure to Greek government bonds and also has had to allocate £850 million for mis sold PPI policies they will inevitably have to refund. The money is also there to cover the compensation they will have to pay consumers for PPI claims.

However, the bank also reported an improvement in its core operating profit to £1.7bn from £1.1bn in 2010. The British Bankers Association said RBS is on target to meet business lending commitments drawn up under the Project Merlin agreement with the Government.

Britain’s top five banks RBS, Lloyds, HSBC, Barclays and Santander UK have provided £100.4bn in gross new lending in the first half of the year, including £37.4bn to small businesses.

However reports from consumers have told of customers being forced by their banks to convert their overdraughts into loans to give the impression of new lending. There have also been customers who have had their loan accounts closed and re-opened giving the loans new account numbers and therefore being passed off as new lending.

This shows again the corrupt nature of the banks and the bankers. In order to meet government agreements they are simply re-issuing credit to fool us into thinking that they are meeting targets set by government. The fact that nobody in government has picked up on this suggests possible compliance on their part.

Everyone can try to reclaim bank charges from their banks that have taken money from their account when they had mis-sold mortgages or overdue and bounced cheques. However, they must take some important steps to get credit. They can request assistance of a management claims company stating that they want to help so as to begin their recovery process on their unfair bank charges they have paid in.

First, one should open a bank account. The reason is that many of the banks will fight any charges as much as they could and will include the closure of the bank account if one reclaimed their bank charges successfully. They may also keep records to show that you are a difficult customer which may have an impact on your future relationships that might have with them. Although one may not need the account, it might become a form of insurance so as not to end without one at the end of the day.

Then, it is necessary to collect your transaction history. Before you can reclaim bank charges, you need to know what they have charged you and if it is right or not. If you were able to collect all bank statements, you can have all the necessary evidences. However, if you have gotten rid of the entire statement records, there is still a means of obtaining information of your bank charges. All you need to do is to write to your bank and request the necessary information you need. Under the Data Protection Act, they need to give customers and can’t charge more than 10 pounds for such information.

Finally, after you have all the details of the charges that are unfair contact your bank and tell them you are not satisfied with the way they treat you and the charges they give you. Give specific details of the charges to be recovered and any other relevant information, such as matters of law. You may be able to recover unfair bank charges with 8% interest on what the banks have taken from you.

It appears that the banks have not learned their lesson from the mis sold PPI claims scandal and are continuing to offer their customer misleading advice.  An expose by the BBC’s documentary series Panorama, has revealed that financial advisers are continuing to give what was called “misleading”, “inaccurate,”  and “pressurized” advice to their customers.

Three of UK’s top banks, HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB have all been found guilty of bad practice.

One adviser from HSBC received the harshest criticism, who, according to an undercover investor, did not make any risk questionnaire, only until he insisted.

Like most businesses, HSBC ducked the issue by saying its adviser in question possessed “an excellent track record in providing accurate and suitable financial advice.”

One from the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) told the potential customer about a sale and he could not provide information of its end, assuring the investor “At no stage could he lose his money” – which was a clear tactic in order to make a sale and hit their targets.

While others were “too fast and confusing” as well as “inaccurate”, (pertaining to Lloyds) some were ”uncomfortable” discussing the fees.

A senior Investment adviser commented on their difficulty to be “upfront and honest” about charges, referring to one adviser who tells the charges were “from the fund and not their money”.

He says “This is misleading as the money was put into the fund therefore the charges are still coming out of your money. This was not explained.”

Overall, these advisers were only there to do their jobs and were only “under pressure to sell products in a limited time in order to hit their targets.”

Consumers need to remain vigilant, as the banks crank up the pressure on their staff to increase sales and profitability.  The banks have recently been fined for mis selling PPI, mis-selling mortgages, mis-selling investment products and not dealing with complaints properly…. yet this has not dampened their appetite for increased profits.

Barclays is the first among high street banks to be put to a business model assessment (BMA) that will investigate individual sources of profit that comes in the company.

Lloyds Banking Group and investment banks Goldman Sachs will also be submitted to the test in the next few months.

BMAs were implemented by the Financial Services Authority to enforce a “forward-looking, judgment-based regulation” in due time for its makeover into the new Prudential Regulation Authority by the beginning of 2013.

The Experts’ job will be to ensure liquidity among firms, including the use of the Special Liquidity Scheme by the Bank of England.

Revenues and Funding will be under “stress tests” in order to build banks’ independence from subsidies.

Stress tests will examine the consequences of “structurally lower investment banking margins” and extended low interest rates on retail revenues.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) chief executive Hector Sants supports the power given to city regulator to structure its own analysis of the “long-term profitability of investment banks,” thereby giving the authority to “challenge chief executives’ decisions and force them to modify their business plans”.

The City watchdog accomplished capital and liquidity stress tests on several banks and has formed aggregate models of productivity. It has built a meticulous analysis on potential business risks in everyday transactions.

He further stated, “This is about getting a third leg of the stool which is adding in the firm specific models. It’s about looking at a bank’s earning capability and the drivers of those earnings to alert us to increasing risks being taken and enabling us to have out own answers to the risks posed to that capability in the future and therefore a bank’s ability to grow its’ capital base”

The FSA has already started a “sector-wide” model for funding for UK banks to asses their reliance on different liquidity sources, like the Bank of England’s Special Liquidity Scheme as well as the “covered bond market and retail deposits” of which value to their corresponding financial institution are currently assessed.

The banks are under close scrutiny in the wake of the mis sold PPI scandal.  If you would like to know more about Payment Protection Insurance and whether you may be entitled to PPI compensation, call Bank Charges now on 0800 8407291.

Government members were disappointed when UK banks failed to meet Project Merlin lending targets.

The five signatories to the lending agreement RBS, Lloyds, Barclays, HSBC and Santander UK pledged to the Government last February 9 to provide adequate finance to small and medium enterprises. (£76 billion as this year’s target).

The banks also promised to help overall business lending to £190 billion.

However in its first quarterly lending report, around 2 to three billion pounds fall short on £19 billion which was targeted for the first three months of the year.

The reason behind bank’s incapability to meet deadlines lie on the availability of the lending capacity, which was not fully taken up due to muted demand.

Some analysts believe banks will claim that there is no demand for lending, and said they only agreed to increase “lending capacity” and “there is nothing they can do in the absence of demand for new borrowing”.

Capital Economics Vicky Redwood stated that small businesses are not making a move in asking for the loans because they do not believe banks will give it to them.

She said that the “agreement was not clear what consequences the Government put on if the banks do not do what they promised. In any case, the Government is unlikely to do anything yet. After all, the agreements were for 2011 as a whole and it is only fair to let the banks try to get back on track.”

Banks often evade their responsibilities and always look for opportunities to gain more profit as proven by the Mis Sold PPI Scandal and the extortionately high interest rates on credit cards that we’re seeing today.

If you are one of those who has been a victim of the banks, we can provide assistance in reclaiming mis sold PPI.

Top UK banks are considering a clawback on bonuses from former bosses who were involved in the PPI mis-selling scandal.

PPI redress amounts to billions, and it is believed that banking executives slipped millions into their pockets during years PPI was actively mis sold.

Banking Insiders warn that if they decide to do so, they will face a huge legal case.

Several banking sources said procedures were not present during the 5-year mis- selling duration, and even if they did exist, its application will not be easy.

“You could try to claw back bonuses, but you would find yourself in court” one source stated.

Chief executive of Lloyds Banking Group Antonio Horta – Osorio stated that his compensation body will evaluate the situation’s suitability. On the other hand, Royal Bank of Scotland’s head of retail division, Brian Hartzer would consider bonus claw back like his contemporaries HSBC and Barclays.

However, The Financial Services Authority orders that only 40% of remuneration should be set aside and that it may be subject for claw back if situations call for it.

Since there is no law to regain money that had been handed out, a source said only bonuses postponed would make for a suitable clawback.

PPI policies were originally intended to help borrowers with their debts in the event of redundancy or illness and widely mis-sold between 2005 and 2010. They have now been forced to set aside £billions to repay their customers who had been mis sold ppi.

After their initial fight in trying to overturn the policies in handling PPI, the BBA have finally agreed to compensate its customers.

Already banks are paying out billions worth of compensation. Here at bankcharges.com, we are committed to reclaim mis sold ppi that had been wrongly collected by high-street banks. Call us up at 0800 840 7291 and learn how.

HSBC reported 14% fall in their profits after pronouncing £269m payment protection insurance compensation.

The bank, which remained unwaivered despite last week’s slowly diminishing BBA support, has finally backed down and agreed to put aside £285m to repay customers who were mis sold ppi. According to Chief executive Stuart Gulliver, it went along with the decision after seeing a thin chance of winning the appeal.

Gulliver went on to explain HSBC’s provision, being the lowest among the big banks, by stating that it had stopped selling PPI in 2007.

Weak trading in Europe and the US as well as rising costs also affected HSBC pre-tax income which plummeted to £3bn upto March 2011.   the quarter and towards the end of the month. not to mention its shares rolled downhill 11.2 percent at 640.5 percent.

Discussions about disposals and s crackdown on HSBC’s cost base are some of the topics to be reviewed.  There are even possible reports of staff cutting and branch closures.

The bank’s cost ratio rose to 60.9% in the latest quarter however this included the PPI provision and other one-off items.  Gulliver warned that it may take two to three years to sort out efficiency problems of the bank.

The banks sold payment protection insurance alongside loans and other borrowings to boost their profits.  However, many of the customers who were mis sold ppi were not eligible to make a claim on the policy rendering it worthless.  The £269m HSBC have set aside to repay customers who were miss sold is only provisional and the actual cost of could be a lot higher depending on the number of customers who come forward to reclaim ppi.