A balanced view is required on most things, so should both sides of the PPI debate be considered before the selling of such policies becomes black-listed?
When the FSA gets involved in any issue it becomes a great source of news headlines for starved financial editors looking for new angles. The recent investigation by the FSA into the selling of PPI policies is a subject that seems to be getting more than it's fair share of exagerated statistics and unbalanced news coverage.
Take the forthcoming BBC Moneybox programme dedicated to the subject with a panel of three participants set to discuss the area. Radio2 favourite Martin Lewis who runs and earns a pretty packet no-doubt from his moneysavingexpert website, plus someone from Citizens Advice and someone else from the Consumer Credit Counselling Service. So that's one side covered, but what about representation from the finance companies? Perhaps someone from the Association of Finance Brokers (AFB) or someone from FISA, the Finance Industry Standards Association should be on the panel? Both these organisation know exactly what's going on in this area as both recently issued guidance to finance companies about the investigation and how they should be responding to it, so why aren't they there to discuss on behalf of the industry.
The issue the FSA has is largely with the way PPI is sold and not with PPI per se.
Of course, just like other insurance policies, only customers who think they need it and can afford to pay for it should take the policy. Everyone's circumstances are different and the comfort provided by such a policy is very important to some loan customers.
If the current press witch-hunt causes PPI, as a protection against unforeseen events, to become persona non grata in the loans world, then many people will remain unprotected and no doubt, some will lose homes they would have otherwise been able to keep.