PPI- a long con?

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
PPI- a long con?

I recently imagined that there was much more to PPI than just a bunch of greedy bankers trying to con customers out of a few bob.

Imagine;

Someone (extremely manipulative and clever) in a position of power projects that the bubble will burst around 2008 and plots an ambitious way for banks and the government to kill plenty of birds with one stone.
PPI is invented and the banks are free to charge customers for protection that doesn't exist on loans leading up to 2008.
The money taken from these customers is re-invested and as shares continue to rise till 2008, they make plenty of money from their scam.
When the scam is finally 'discovered' by the government, the banks are ordered, after expensive law-suits, to pay back the money they brazenly stole from their customers.
The govt and democracy is hailed as a saviour and the banks get egg on their faces, although they've already doubled their income from investments made from their theft and not one banker goes to jail for the nationwide crime.
With the economy in freefall, unemployment rises but, thanks to PPI, tens of thousands of jobs become available for the unemployed to pounce on.
These people sign off the dole, return to work and relieve the govt of their need to pay their rent and council tax. They buy suits and train tickets, sandwiches and coffee, and call people all day long trying to get them to use their services to recover money from PPI loans. Unemployment figures are eased by the hoards of people doing this soulless job. Staff turnover is very high, allowing for the quarterly unemployment figures to be carefully manipulated in the govt's favour.
Not only are commercial premises being filled and telecoms companies thriving, but fantastic salespeople are being discovered through PPI, oh, and income tax and national insurance contributions are being paid into the public purse too.

I reckon PPI's a long con, devised between government and banks as an economy-saving exploitation mechanism, and I'm sure it'll happen again.
If you think this is a wild conspiracy theory, that's OK. I just wondered if this made sense to anyone.

Makes absolute sense to me blighters, wish I'd have thought of it. Many years ago when I was going through a bit of a bad spell, I was recruited by an Estate Agent firm ( Household name), I was to sell Mortgages for them. Great idea, go into an Estate Agent to buy your house and while you're there sort out your Mortgage as well, couldn't fail. We were told not only by the company concerned but by the many Banks and Building societies that we represented that we MUST sell PPI. "Tell them it's part of the mortgage costs, just add it in" If we didn't sell it we were considered to be complete wankers by the rest of the sales team, the management and the banks! I lasted six months before I got a real job.

 

Hi Jolono That's agreat example of how the con worked. I remember asking for a business loan in 2006 and my bank manager treated me like a real live human being, ushering me upstairs into a beautiful office. He even offered me some coffee. He gave me the loan but when I declined PPI, after alot of bamboozling, his whole demeanour changed. It was pretty obvious he was on some sort of commission. I like the way they've made terrorism work for them, too. Have you noticed such a thing as Terrorism Insurance? The average amount a management firm pays for an ordinary block of flats is about £300 a year. Now that's what I call money for nothing.

 

Back then, we were told ( instructed) that you had to tell them they would have a better chance of being accepted for the mortgage if they took the whole insurance package as well. PPI, Buildings and contents insurance, Critical Illness, the whole lot. If they didn't want it then you kind of shrugged your shoulders and said " No chance". They took it because they wanted their mortgage, people were promoted because of how much they "sold". The same with mortgages, people who had no right or no chance of getting one were somehow "let through" by Banks and Building Societies because they wanted to sell the money. They had targets to acheive like everyone else, so they wanted to give you a mortgage even though you shouldn't have been able to have one because they knew you wouldn't be able to pay back the repayments..

 

Spot on. Stealth ruled the roost before the recession, but things are normalising now, or are they..?

 

Have you ever thought of going into politics, or better still, a think/spin tank? You'd be brilliant at it.

 

Hi Marion, I have thought about it but only during a particularly delusional spell, and once on a very good tab of acid.

 

I got 6 grand back from my mortgage PPI. I remember the woman telling me to take it, or l wouldn't get my house! I shouldn't have, cos of my crap salary. Now l'm struggling to pay my mortgage. I agree with every word you say, although l didn't understand all of it. You should be writing in a daily newspaper xx
Hi Denni That makes sense. The American election in 2000 was a con. Al Gore should have won but the moneymen manipulated the results to give George Bush victory. The economic bubble should have burst then (and we'd be in far better shape now if it had) but the moneymen wanted to keep blowing up the balloon to increase their wealth and strengthen their hold on weak-willed western governments. Anyone with a job and a mortgage was cashing in so no one apart from the disenfranchised really cared. I don't know when PPI started but it would make sense if it started around 2005 because that was the start of the end of the boom, a time to penalise those on the margins who still wanted to buy a property, thinking that the housing market would remain buoyant. The banks knew when it would crash and by how much, lizards laying in wait for the spoils of repossessions and marriage splits. It really is a jungle out there but I though humans were supposed to be more than animals. I'm glad you got your money back, though.

 

Sometimes l'm glad l don't understand about political matters, as l would feel soooo ANGRY at these people in powerful positions. As l said, why don't you go help change things for us wee folk ?? You would get my vote xx
That's sweet, Denni, but I'm useless at confrontation and too easily riled. I'm passionate but take things very personally so politics isn't for me. In fact, I'm trying to remove myself from all debate, news, media but it's so damn hard. Maybe I like the discomfort but it's growing thinner and thinner. I also can't handle resentment. For politicians, resentment's like water off a duck's back. I let people get to me and imagine they're attacking me personally. I should take a leaf out of your book and let the world's shit blow straight over my head. Maybe then I'd understand what's really important. All the best Richard

 

I'm not sure the US 2000 election was a con, Blighters. Everyone knows the score, it's written in the constitution - elections are won by whichever candidate gains the most Electoral College votes (I think it's 270 out of 538). Gore won the popular vote (in other words more people voted for him) but Bush won the Electoral College vote (in other words, he gained States with more EC votes (and over 270) than Gore did). In Obama's case he won both the Electoral vote and the popular vote. It might seem unfair (which I actually think it is), but it's written in the US constitution (in 1787 I think), so not actually a con, since everyone (at least in the US) knows that's the way it works. Either way, as Mark Twain famously said - If voting made any difference, we wouldn't be allowed to do it. http://www.ukauthors.com