claims handling companies

maxdp

MSE Wendy
Researcher (Money)
MoneySaving Stalwart


Join Date: Feb 2007
Post Count: 333
Thanked 931 Times in 144 Posts


Question of the week: Should I use a reclaiming claims handling company?
Q. What do you think of these Claim Service Companies that are now surfacing with regards to reclaiming bank charges fees? Is it worth it? Laurelle, by e-mail.

Martin’s Answer: We’ve seen an explosion of claims companies since bank charges started, initially I was scathing, but over the years I’ve softened a touch.

With most reclaims, it's pointless for anyone who’s literate with web acess to pay. Most Bank Charges, Loan Insurance (PPI), Mortgage Fees reclaims are in that category, as these links take you through guides with easy free pre-drafted template letters. Yet for the financially phobic, if you’d never do it yourself, then paying someone's better than not reclaiming at all.

Then there are certain areas, eg PPI reclaims which the Ombudsman can’t adjudicate on, where a good claims handler works as it's a complex technical fight needing lawyers not templates.

NOTE - if you've come from the weekly email to read this, where we have said "eg PPI reclaims which the Ombudsman can’t adjudicate on" simply means those not regulated by the FOS (which applies to a few lenders before 2005). The vast majority the FOS can help with so please contact them if you'd like help with your case.

Yet there are certain areas, , where a good claims handler works as it's a complex technical fight needing lawyers not templates



Yet the scary trend is for the growth of claims handing companies touting things like “pay us £400 up front”, for a raft of reclaim types. NEVER use any of those companies, DO NOT pay up front.

If you can't do it yourself, try a no-win no-fee company that charges a MAX. 25% of your winnings. For any decent company that should be enough, no matter what the reclaim.

Just found this in another pst do not know who has seen it so I copied it over.

petermb_2

Interesting. I would go further though. Claims handlers are not only useful when the FOS cannot assist (pre FSA regulations), I for one know that we would recover far more than just the premiums and some interest. We would be looking for at least double the premiums and would also be looking at the validity of the agreement and any undisclosed commissions, which could void the account or make it unenforceable.

All this.........and no fees whatsoever. Magic !!

di3004

My case going all smoothly so far and so good, solicitor prompt as well, great service so far.

I will also suggest to people reading this, where they will also find on other threads and sites, is never to go to a company who charge a penny, always get plenty of advice before agreeing to anything in these cases.;)

Edinburghlass_2

No need to copy the post over, just reply on the thread

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1579195

maxdp

Edinburghlass wrote: »

No need to copy the post over, just reply on the thread

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1579195

Soz there was a poster on here that was asking about things so I posted in case anybody had missed it that was the only reasons

Credit-Crunched

petermb wrote: »

Interesting. I would go further though. Claims handlers are not only useful when the FOS cannot assist (pre FSA regulations), I for one know that we would recover far more than just the premiums and some interest. We would be looking for at least double the premiums and would also be looking at the validity of the agreement and any undisclosed commissions, which could void the account or make it unenforceable.

All this.........and no fees whatsoever. Magic !!

Should this web page be used to pedal your own business, i feel not. Fees or no fees this is not the place to advertise your services.

petermb_2

Credit-Crunched wrote: »

Should this web page be used to pedal your own business, i feel not. Fees or no fees this is not the place to advertise your services.

The truth is that there is a lot of talk and a great deal of bleating but very few people actually do anything that is remotely of assistance.

There are some people that talk and there are others that do.

~Brock~

I must admit to finding certain aspects of claims management companies fascinating (present company excepted of course, peter).

A business requiring no skill, qualifications or startup capital sets up a website at minimal cost (always with glamorous women wearing headsets!!) and makes eye catching promises designed to tempt desparate and hard up people by giving them a glimmer of hope.

Up front fees are charged for the promise of having their cases reviewed by their 'panel' of solicitors (themselves hard up bottom feeders that could have been dealing with proper legal work had they paid more attention at law school)

I have seen first hand the grubby little offices some of these companies work from, and the complete lack of morals they display to their clients. The trail of destruction they leave does no favours to any legitimate side the industry may have, which is why they are now regulated. I strongly suspect this regulatory noose is going to tighten.

When it comes to the thorny subject of unenforceable credit agreements, the majority of borrowers have no problem or issue with their lenders, because they borrow responsibly and manage their money correctly. Why on earth therefore would they want to shatter their relationship with their creditors and throw away the chance of further credit in the future, especially when it is so hard to come by right now?

This leaves those who are already in trouble, and who wont give a monkeys about the consequences - which is the sector that these companies target. Unfortunatley for them, and just like fee charging debt management companies, they have few fans either from the legitimate side of the claims industry (witness peters own views on the type of company I am talking about), or from pro-consumer websites such as this, and even from the regulatory side of the industry such as the OFT, who are releasing a line of ever stonger signals that they are not happy with their activities.

I doubt that most of these companies will survive until the end of next year, and I dread to think how much in non refunded fees will go unpaid. The business owners will simply pop up somewhere else under a different business name and have a go at whateever the next get-rich-quick flavour of the month is.

Perhaps my age and experience makes me naturally cynical about this - however I suspect that there are many others that share my views.

petermb_2

~Brock~ wrote: »

I must admit to finding certain aspects of claims management companies fascinating (present company excepted of course, peter).

A business requiring no skill, qualifications or startup capital sets up a website at minimal cost (always with glamorous women wearing headsets!!) and makes eye catching promises designed to tempt desparate and hard up people by giving them a glimmer of hope.

Up front fees are charged for the promise of having their cases reviewed by their 'panel' of solicitors (themselves hard up bottom feeders that could have been dealing with proper legal work had they paid more attention at law school)

I have seen first hand the grubby little offices some of these companies work from, and the complete lack of morals they display to their clients. The trail of destruction they leave does no favours to any legitimate side the industry may have, which is why they are now regulated. I strongly suspect this regulatory noose is going to tighten.

When it comes to the thorny subject of unenforceable credit agreements, the majority of borrowers have no problem or issue with their lenders, because they borrow responsibly and manage their money correctly. Why on earth therefore would they want to shatter their relationship with their creditors and throw away the chance of further credit in the future, especially when it is so hard to come by right now?

This leaves those who are already in trouble, and who wont give a monkeys about the consequences - which is the sector that these companies target. Unfortunatley for them, and just like fee charging debt management companies, they have few fans either from the legitimate side of the claims industry (witness peters own views on the type of company I am talking about), or from pro-consumer websites such as this, and even from the regulatory side of the industry such as the OFT, who are releasing a line of ever stonger signals that they are not happy with their activities.

I doubt that most of these companies will survive until the end of next year, and I dread to think how much in non refunded fees will go unpaid. The business owners will simply pop up somewhere else under a different business name and have a go at whateever the next get-rich-quick flavour of the month is.

Perhaps my age and experience makes me naturally cynical about this - however I suspect that there are many others that share my views.

My friend Brock. I for one totally agree with you. Most will go under and good riddance.

petermb_2

~Brock~ wrote: »

I must admit to finding certain aspects of claims management companies fascinating (present company excepted of course, peter).

A business requiring no skill, qualifications or startup capital sets up a website at minimal cost (always with glamorous women wearing headsets!!) and makes eye catching promises designed to tempt desparate and hard up people by giving them a glimmer of hope.

Up front fees are charged for the promise of having their cases reviewed by their 'panel' of solicitors (themselves hard up bottom feeders that could have been dealing with proper legal work had they paid more attention at law school)

I have seen first hand the grubby little offices some of these companies work from, and the complete lack of morals they display to their clients. The trail of destruction they leave does no favours to any legitimate side the industry may have, which is why they are now regulated. I strongly suspect this regulatory noose is going to tighten.

When it comes to the thorny subject of unenforceable credit agreements, the majority of borrowers have no problem or issue with their lenders, because they borrow responsibly and manage their money correctly. Why on earth therefore would they want to shatter their relationship with their creditors and throw away the chance of further credit in the future, especially when it is so hard to come by right now?

This leaves those who are already in trouble, and who wont give a monkeys about the consequences - which is the sector that these companies target. Unfortunatley for them, and just like fee charging debt management companies, they have few fans either from the legitimate side of the claims industry (witness peters own views on the type of company I am talking about), or from pro-consumer websites such as this, and even from the regulatory side of the industry such as the OFT, who are releasing a line of ever stonger signals that they are not happy with their activities.

I doubt that most of these companies will survive until the end of next year, and I dread to think how much in non refunded fees will go unpaid. The business owners will simply pop up somewhere else under a different business name and have a go at whateever the next get-rich-quick flavour of the month is.

Perhaps my age and experience makes me naturally cynical about this - however I suspect that there are many others that share my views.

I do agree with you regarding my peers or not so peers in the claims industry but lets not forget where this all stemmed from for a second.

The claims companies did not invent unenforceable agreements.

The claims companies did not invent undisclosed commissions and the law of agency and fiduciary duty.

The claims companies did not invent the mis-selling of ppi.

The claims companies did not invent the commissions paid for the mis-selling of ppi.

The claims companies did not charge fees to arrange loans and then receive commissions on top without telling their clients.

The financial services boys did this all by themselves.

Now where does the blame actually lie?????????

Go on and tell me it is the blame of Claims Companies... go on if you dare !!!!

~Brock~

petermb wrote: »

I do agree with you regarding my peers or not so peers in the claims industry but lets not forget where this all stemmed from for a second.

The claims companies did not invent unenforceable agreements.

The claims companies did not invent undisclosed commissions and the law of agency and fiduciary duty.

The claims companies did not invent the mis-selling of ppi.

The claims companies did not invent the commissions paid for the mis-selling of ppi.

The claims companies did not charge fees to arrange loans and then receive commissions on top without telling their clients.

The financial services boys did this all by themselves.

Now where does the blame actually lie?????????

Go on and tell me it is the blame of Claims Companies... go on if you dare !!!!

peter - your pre-occupation appears to be with undisclosed commissions, with the apparent assumption that the entire lending industry is based on this.

Away from the mortgage and secured loan markets there is very little in the way of broker/customer fidicuary relationships going on. Bank loans, credit cards etc have got nothing to do with undisclosed commissions. Your last post appears to tar the whole industry with the same brush.

Money is always a subject where feelings and tensions run high, but it still gets furstrating when people jump on the media driven bandwagon to blame the entire industry for all the ills you mention.

The same goes for PPI. I do not deny that it has been overpriced and missold in certain quarters, but again do not tar the whole industry with the same brush. Also please do not believe the media driven myths that it never pays out in the event of claims. The claiming industry is also doing a great job of helping a significant proportion of people submit fraudulent mis-selling claims, by helping them to make up reasons for mis-selling which are clearly false. This is just as fraudulent as the genuine mis-selling cases were themselves originally.

The claims companies I was actually referring to are the ones currently focusing on the assumption that most Pre07 agreements will be unenforceable (which is rubbish as you well know) . They do not talk about commissions or, in some cases, PPI.

People should think carefully as to whether they do actually want a lending industry to exist at all. They moan about interest charges, and having to pay the money back, and look for ways to worm out of obligations, yet then expect a huge range of options to be available when they want a new car or TV. Witness the number of people posting on the loans forum needing a loan who are unable to get one. Even the government acknowledges the crucial role that lending plays in getting demand for goods rising and the economy going again. By all means be critical of certain sectors, but please do not tar the whole industry with the same brush - you need it more than you probably realise.

I was careful in my post not to tar the entire claiming industry, acknowledging as I did the legitimate side of the industry. Please do not stoop to the same level as the gutter press. I thought higher of you than that.

I should add, as a postscript, that I have never been a fan of finance brokers either. Unlike the lenders themselves, who only make a profit if the customer actually pays, the finance broker often has little concern as to whether the customer is actually getting the right loan for them or whether they can afford it. As long as the customer pays for as long as their commission is safe from clawback, then why should they care. Evidence the number of mortgage brokers being banned by the FSA at the moment for falsifying applications. That is the face of the industry I have little time for. Imagine how ironic I therefore find it to see many of these brokers now turning their hand to claims management, by signing up as agents for some of the more agrressive claims marketeers out there. Perhaps the two industries have more in common than we realise. Perhaps I need to lie down.