Bought something you didn’t need recently?
Apparently it’s not your fault
“A group of disgruntled customers have today launched a class action suit against Apple for selling them over-priced gadgets for the last ten years. Eying a share of Apple’s $100bn cash pile, which lawyers say was earned amorally at the expense of customers seduced into paying premium prices for quality products, the plaintiffs are adamant that they are victims of Apple’s ruthless pursuit of technical innovation. “Sure, I love my iPhone, it’s awesome,” said one claimant, Ms Teresa Tickle, “but I could have bought a cheaper phone from someone else that would do the same things. Apple made me pay more for their phone and that’s not right!”
“Consumers cheered today as a new law was passed allowing them to demand refunds for any entertainment they purchased but later found they didn’t like. Said cinemagoer Richard Head tonight “It’s about damned time! The poster looked great but that film was a load of crap. Now I can finally get my money back.” Meanwhile share prices of entertainment companies have crashed as analysts view their business models now to be completely unsustainable.”
Not so far fetched
The above examples are clearly untrue, and to any right-minded person they are not only nonsensical but frankly offensive.
But nonsensical for how long? There’s a disturbing trend in modern society, so used to the Nanny State protecting people from their own stupidity, to increasingly expect corporations to do the same thing.
Unless you’ve been living like a character from Lost for the last few years, the so-called PPI mis-selling scandal cannot have passed you by. Newspapers, magazines and the Internet are choc-full of advertising from companies cashing-in on handling claims for those poor, misguided individuals who were ruthlessly sold insurance they neither wanted, needed, nor in some cases could ever claim on, by the Evil Big Banks, with even government agencies egging them on to do so.
These outfits are fitting heirs to the Ambulance-chasers Direct breed of corporate piranhas who promise to get you a fat pay-out for being a dumb klutz. And they’re marketing their services just as aggressively. 10 years ago when I had my leg in plaster for a while I couldn’t go to a shopping mall without being accosted by some claim-mugger asking me how it had happened and telling me they could get me compensation. Now I’m receiving weekly text messages that I’ve never signed up for, telling me that I could be in for compensation for PPI I bought but didn’t want.
Now, as one of those seemingly rare souls who actually accepts responsibility for their actions and decisions, I’m somewhat at a loss as to how you mis-sell payment protection insurance to someone.
Didn’t want it, didn’t need it
Companies sell stuff, people buy stuff. A company’s job is to sell as much as possible, a consumer’s job is to choose what they want to buy, from whom, and how much to pay for it.
If I don’t want payment protection insurance and a credit card issuer is trying to sell it to me, don’t I, erm, just say no? What am I missing here?
If I didn’t ask for it and they tacked it on to my new card anyway, then when I get my first statement and there’s a charge on it I wasn’t expecting, don’t I, erm, call them and tell them that I didn’t ask for it, to stop charging me for it and to refund the premium?
Now, if they say no, I’ve got a basis for complaint, if they ignore me I’ve got a basis for complaint. But it’s hard to imagine big banks needing to set billions of pounds aside for a few rare cases like that.
Couldn’t use it
Okay, some people took on PPI cover who wouldn’t actually be able to claim on it, because they’re self-employed for example. But since when have we expected insurers to check every aspect of a person’s lifestyle to determine if the insurance policy they’re going to buy covers them all? That’s what insurance brokers are there for. If you want cover for something and you’re either unwilling or unable to check the policy wording yourself, then go to a broker. If someone offers you an insurance policy and you decide to give them your money and buy it, shouldn’t the due diligence fall on you?
Everyone likes a windfall
A PPI mis-selling claim is an admission of idiocy on the part of the claimant. To more people than just myself it’s also an admission of a pretty piss-poor set of morals.
But while I dislike the claimants, I abhor their enablers. I abhor government sponsorship of the view that private companies should be entirely liable for the purchasing decisions of their customers and I detest the middle-men who are packaging up the claim process into something with the character of a small lottery win.
After all, wouldn’t most of us cheerfully accept a few quid out of nowhere if we’re relieved of feeling like we need to take a shower after doing so?
Robbing Peter to pay Peter
But, at least in this case, there’s reason for the morally sound amongst us to take heart.
Stop for a moment and think about where the money to pay these claims is coming from.
People with a PPI mis-selling claim are people who’ve paid PPI premiums. People who’ve paid PPI premiums are people who borrow money. If the banks have to pay out billions in PPI claims, then they have to get that money from somewhere right? And where do banks get their money from? That’s right, borrowers, who will now be paying higher credit card charges and loan interest to fund their own claims.
Neat.
That’s justice at work, and a victory for now. It puts a smile on my face, just so long as I stop myself from thinking too much about the road we’re heading down.