Out of all the banks and card companies that were held liable for the PPI mis-selling scandal, Lloyds has proved to be the most notorious. It has robbed its customers off billions of pounds and is still not fully guilty for the mishap. This is why Lloyds is constantly in the news years even years after the scam was initially uncovered.
An undercover sting operation conducted by The Times further laid bare the involvement of lloyds in the PPI mis-selling saga. During the investigation, it was ascertained that there were many suspicious activities and operations that were being carried out in the centre tasked with handling complaints. According to the investigation reports, all the employees working for the claims and complaints department were asked to act ignorant when it came to PPI complaints. They were asked to behave as if they had not sold any policy in an unethical manner to the customers. What is worse is the ideology behind this action. It was discovered that the management at Lloyds believed that if a customer is rejected once, they will give up trying to make the claim again.
According to Lloyds, a customer would not make more attempts if their claims are rejected in the first go. This is why the employees were also trained to be so confident and cold that the customers believe the fact that they have not been wrongly sold any policy. This would ultimately save them a huge amount of money.
After the investigation, the bank was contacted by the authorities, and were asked to give their clarification. In their defence, Lloyds claimed that the centre which is operated by an accountancy firm named Deloitte, was checked and visited much before the undercover reporter was there at the bank. It was also disclosed that the bank terminated all the relations with Deloitte, as it ran similar suspicious activities for Barclays, another big offender in the PPI scandal. Hence, Lloyds claimed that the investigated operations are independent, and they do not reflect the practices at other centres of the bank.
However, the investigation still suggests that the bank had been trying to avoid paying the compensation amount. Being the bank with the maximum number of complaints, it already has a load of claims to take care of. Thus, it has been finding ways to spend less and save more, which is either way an unethical practice for the bank.