Penalties for Insurers behaving badly

vaio

Yep, that's the reason behind my 100% award uplift min £5k idea.

Under that firm A would pay £20k and firm B would pay £30k which more accurately reflect their performance/complaints ratio

foggytown

If people would just read the link thoughtfully provided by MaxPlanck! Part of it clearly says

Fewer than one in six of the initial complaints and enquiries we receive at our front-line customer contact division become chargeable cases. The other complaints and enquiries usually involve matters we do not deal with – or matters that that can be resolved very early on, just by clarifying misunderstandings and sorting things out informally.
A case fee becomes "chargeable" when our customer contact division passes a complaint on for further work to one of our casework teams of adjudicators. The fee does not actually become payable until the case is settled and closed. Our finance team sends out an invoice for the case fee to the business concerned at the end of the month in which the case is closed.

However, all businesses are entitled to a number of "free" cases. We do not charge businesses for the first three chargeable cases closed during the (financial) year. We charge only for the fourth (and any subsequent) case.

Clearly this shows that the initial filtering system means that only complaints that have apparent merit are charged for.

magpiecottage

foggytown wrote: »

Clearly this shows that the initial filtering system means that only complaints that have apparent merit are charged for.

It would if it worked but it doesn't.

Examples I know of include a woman complaining because her husband did not get as big a pension of his brother and a chartered accountant complaining that he was not given correct tax advice by an IFA.

These get charged for.

The system is abused and the claims management companies do it with impunity because they know there is no risk in trying it on.

dunstonh

It would if it worked but it doesn't.

Examples I know of include a woman complaining because her husband did not get as big a pension of his brother and a chartered accountant complaining that he was not given correct tax advice by an IFA.

I know a mortgage adviser that was charged by the FOS from a complaint from a claims company about mis-sold PPI. There was no PPI recommended or sold. The claims company still took it to the FOS and the FOS obviously rejected the complaint but the mortgage adviser was hit with the FOS charge.

Clearly this shows that the initial filtering system means that only complaints that have apparent merit are charged for.

Wish there was a decent filtering method but there isnt.