Your comments on stories appearing in Insurance Times and on the website Insurancetimes.co.uk over the past seven days
Old-style PPI is dead
The Competition Commission at last has published its provisional decision on remedies for payment protection insurance (PPI). Many of its proposals are fundamental to the future of the market – the end of single-premium PPI, “de-linking” the purchase of the product from the underlying loan and the provision of more information on costs and cover.
The reputation of PPI has been badly hit and it’s no surprise that many have turned their backs on what is, ironically, the most important financial protection that consumers now should have access to.
Market statistics point to the impact of the damage, with ABI figures showing a 26% drop in premium volumes for the main providers last year; this was on top of a 14% reduction the previous year. In 2008, the volumes could drop by 40%, with many lenders stopping selling PPI altogether.
But we must not say good riddance to old rubbish and expect consumers simply to feel better about the products. Many flexible products are already available offering straightforward terms and exclusions. Our experience shows that a large proportion of the business we now write in the UK is on a monthly premium basis. So the changes are already being made, but much more work needs to be done to regain the trust of consumers and intermediaries.
Love them or loathe them, these remedies provide the opportunity to move forward and start to rebuild the PPI market. Old-style PPI is dead.
Chris Biles, active underwriter, Syndicate 5820, Cassidy Davis.
Stay as we are
The plan to change the name of the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII) to the Chartered Institute of Financial Services (6 November, page 8) relegates the insurance industry to an afterthought.
In addition, the IFS School of Finance has for many years been known as the Institute of Financial Services. Why on earth would we want to use this name other than to confuse people into thinking we are the same as this body?
I urge CII members to vote against these proposals and send a message to the institute’s leaders that insurance should remain our focus and that we have no need to use an existing organisation’s name. Doing so does not set an example of good ethics or professionalism.
Ted Cordener, Chatham, Kent.
