MSE News: Financial Ombudsman says 'don't use claims management firms'

dunstonh

magpiecottage wrote: »

Good news for this bloke then - he's in need of a new job!

He would have no scruples about running a CMC.

benrudd

I am very new to this type of thing and don`t know if i`m on the right page,but i was called today by EMCAS saying they could get me money back from endowment policies and PPI.After giving them some information they gave me the t&c`s and said they would charge 47%for the endowment and 35% for the PPI.I know now this is outrageous.Is EMCAS a scam or are they legit.

Going-Under_2

Hi Blackatan,

Just wanted to reach out to a fellow victim; what company have you dealt with?
I feel that I am happy to go to court.
Remember the New Forest Christmas Lapland scammers? Where they promised a winter wonderland and all people got was a muddy field with sheds? How is this different?
Those scammers were taken to court by trading standards and went to prison.
I wish some action would be taken against these CMC's too - they are taking much more money from people, from the evidence on this site.
Just to repeat myself, I was told the loan may be written off, yet a year later I've heard nothing about their so-called audit and they still say it's ongoing! Barely legal theft is what I think it is. I was told I'd get my money back if no case. Pah!

BenRudd: (hope I've got that right) don't touch that company IMO, especially if they cold-called, as per previous posts.

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

He would have no scruples about running a CMC.

We may, of course, be libelling him by suggesting such a thing!

magpiecottage

benrudd wrote: »

I am very new to this type of thing and don`t know if i`m on the right page,but i was called today by EMCAS saying they could get me money back from endowment policies and PPI.After giving them some information they gave me the t&c`s and said they would charge 47%for the endowment and 35% for the PPI.I know now this is outrageous.Is EMCAS a scam or are they legit.

Depends what you mean. They are regulated by the MOJ but, as I noted yesterday, that does not mean they are scrupulous.

I have dealt with complaints submitted by EMCAS in which they say that complainants state that they were told the loan was guaranteed to be paid off and not warned of the possibility of a shortfall.

This is a standard letter. However, the Fraud Act 2006 makes it an offence to make a statement that is false or misleading.

Therefore, if the firm finds evidence that you WERE told, not only will the complaint be rejected but the firm has evidence that YOU have attempted to defraud them.

If the firm then decided to take action against you over it, you could find it hard to get insurance (of any kind) in future.

Although, to date, nobody has attempted this, using a CMC is not without its risks. For that reason, I now always write direct to the complainant warning them of this when one of my clients forwards a complaint from a CMC.

By contrast, if you write yourself, you can avoid making statements that are obviously untrue.

But there is a further reason:

Any redress you are entitled to is intended to put you back into the position you would have been in but for the misleading advice.

However, you are not entitled to compensation to cover the CMC's fee. Thus, say, you were entitled to redress of £10,000 on your endowment, you need all of that to put things right. If you have to pay £4,700 of it to a CMC, that means you still have to find £4,700 of your own money to put things right.

By contrast, for less than £5 in stamps, paper, ink etc. you can do it yourself. You will be no less successful and you will, if anything, be slightly quicker because no time will be wasted dealing with a (very expensive) middleman.

benrudd

Thanks Magpiecottage, Is there any guidelines or places i can go to find out how to do it myself. I hate filling forms they fill me with dread.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

This is a standard letter. However, the Fraud Act 2006 makes it an offence to make a statement that is false or misleading.

Therefore, if the firm finds evidence that you WERE told, not only will the complaint be rejected but the firm has evidence that YOU have attempted to defraud them.

The statement wasn't made directly to EMCAS by the customer - it was only claimed to have been by a third party - and as such is incapable of amounting to ''evidence'' of attempting to defraud.

Going-Under_2

Hi,

I was wondering if any of the clever people on here could shed any light as to why a CMC (Redress) with a VAT reg. number on their covering letter would issue a proforma invoice with no VAT and say that a proforma invoice is enforceable?
They then issue an actual invoice with no VAT, no mention of it and still no VAT registration number on that invoice either?

There is a suggestion on this site that they ceased trading at one point but I don't know for sure.

Many thanks.

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The statement wasn't made directly to EMCAS by the customer - it was only claimed to have been by a third party - and as such is incapable of amounting to ''evidence'' of attempting to defraud.

In that case EMCAS has committed the offence.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

In that case EMCAS has committed the offence.

Then hopefully you'll think twice before misdirecting accusations of attempted fraud.