We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
MSE News: Claims firms' lies on PPI revealed by building societies
Options
Former_MSE_Helen
Posts: 2,382 Forumite
"Claims firms push through complaints on mis-selling from those who've never had PPI, a trade association says..."
0
Comments
-
I referred my own case to HSBC 18 months ago and was told uncategorically that I didn't have PPI and they had destroyed all documents relating to the loans I enquired about as they were over 6 years old. I subsequently reopened the complaint when the FOS issued the "consumer questionnaire" providing details of what I could remember relating to my complaint. Surprise, surprise I've received an offer of over £1300 covering both accounts.
Although I would never use a CMC myself as I consider myself a bit more financially savvy, some people may have lost out by taking their banks' word at face value.
My question would be, how many banks are claiming "no PPI", as a stock response like mine, when in fact there IS/WAS PPI? Many of the claims within the industry are actually driven by the public who are enticed by the "no win no fee" offers. The average joe has nothing to lose and if someone else is willing to do the work for them, why not submit a claim on the offchance they might have PPI?
I think consumers have a lot to answer for and that is being lost in the sensationalist headlines where we're falling into the trap of looking for someone to blame other than ourselves. At some point, consumers need to take the blame for not investigating their own purchases BEFORE they part with cash!0 -
Many of the claims within the industry are actually driven by the public who are enticed by the "no win no fee" offers. The average joe has nothing to lose and if someone else is willing to do the work for them, why not submit a claim on the offchance they might have PPI?
Why not ask the advised side of the industry rather than the sales side? Advised PPI complaints only account for 0.2% of PPI complaints at the FOS. So, its a tiny issue. Yet adviser firms are getting fraudulent complaints.
Unlike the banks which are faceless institutions, the advisers are individually regulated by the FSA and have to record complaints on their own personal file. Independents have to report it to their PI insurer (even if no grounds) and the PI insurance can then go up in price (just like no fault claims on car insurance). Also, independents will have to pay to have the complaint dealt with even if rejected.
Just last week there was media coverage about the impact fraudulent complaints are having on advised firms and how one adviser is now calling it a day because he was so shocked that consumers are willing to tell such lies to chase compensation.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
You think a CMC would be any different? A CMC would have taken the Bank's word at face value too.foundationsmcr wrote: »
Although I would never use a CMC myself as I consider myself a bit more financially savvy, some people may have lost out by taking their banks' word at face value.
Your case was prior to the court hearing, when the Banks were doing their utmost to avoid paying anyone anything. It's a different story now, as you found out!
Well done on your success0 -
i think the £1300 is a standard offer used when theres no paperwork to back up any redress workings?0
-
-
ah, i was close then, i knew it was a standard offer for something
0 -
-
Moneyineptitude wrote: »No you weren't close, it's £1200 (not £1300) which is the standard amount!:p
whats 100 quid between a bank and its customer
lol 0 -
-
Moneyineptitude wrote: »You think a CMC would be any different? A CMC would have taken the Bank's word at face value too.
Your case was prior to the court hearing, when the Banks were doing their utmost to avoid paying anyone anything. It's a different story now, as you found out!
Well done on your success
Having worked on both sides of the fence, yes, I can see the value that a CMC would have in a "genuine" claim. As comments below suggest, the offers many banks are making are "goodwill" offers, rather than actual full refunds. A decent CMC would not simply accept this offer. The problem is, as with many boom industries, there are too many companies giving the original firms a bad name, and the banks (in their desperation) are using them as a scapegoat for excusing their poor turnaround times and payouts.
On the other hand, CMCs are also clambering over one another to grab market share and are taking consumers at their word, rather than issuing a DSAR to confirm if PPI existed before investigating further.
I'm not in the least bit surprised to hear of people "faking" claims to get repaid money, we're turning into a nation of compo-culture consumers!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards