PPI fraud

Mishomeister

Having worked for the bank for a number of years, I have discovered an interesting thing.

Obviously it is impossible that all PPI was misseld. There have been numerous cases where it was sold to the need, However nowdays I see some of my colleagues, who are really customer caring people getting a complaints against them for a PPI missell.

The bank comes to a customer advisor Joe and asks hin if he remembers the 4yo case of personal loan, sold together with PPI. As he obviously doesn't as he has seen 1000's of customers since than, abnk than due to a high cost of Ombudsman etc just refunds customer the money.
In my opinion at least a half of PPI was not missold, however people just use anything to get the money, even if they have stated before the sale o f the loan they wans to insure it.

Please post your comments.

P.S.
If you like my post, please thank me.

DrSqueeze

Inevitably, when there's a prospect of refunds in the air, some people will see it as an opportunity to try their luck. For a number of reasons, banks are particularly unpopular at the moment, so I suspect some customers see them as fair game (or indeed sense an opportunity for 'revenge' over high charges etc).

So of the mis-selling complaints, I agree a proportion of them will be unjustified / untrue.

However, the number of customers who were genuinely misinformed or sold inappropriate financial products is also probably much higher than the data we've seen so far. Some people simply won't bother to complain, or don't realise they fall into the appropriate category. The thought of having to complete forms, chase progress and argue with large companies will deter others.

Mishomeister

DrSqueeze wrote: »

Inevitably, when there's a prospect of refunds in the air, some people will see it as an opportunity to try their luck. For a number of reasons, banks are particularly unpopular at the moment, so I suspect some customers see them as fair game (or indeed sense an opportunity for 'revenge' over high charges etc).

Well, I would agree with you on the most of the things you wrote, however in regards of the revenging ones for an overdraft charges etc I really wish them a bad luck, because the way the banking system is working in the UK people get a free accounts if they don't get overdrawn in expence of the ones who do. So as i never go overdrawn myself, I am quet happy with the way it is

magpiecottage

It is actually an offence, under the Fraud Act 2006, to make a falsified statement in an attempt to receive redress for yourself or somebody else.

Nobody has actually prosecuted a claimant yet. If a businesses was able to prove it and had the will to do so, I suspect it would change the whole culture of complaining.

I also suspect the FSA would be unhappy if a firm did attempt a prosecution but would find it very difficult to prevent because it has its own statutory duty to reduce financial crime.

Clearly redress should be paid for those who are the victims of misselling but all redress paid puts up costs for us all and fraudulent complaints should be prevented.

dunstonh

In my opinion at least a half of PPI was not missold, however people just use anything to get the money, even if they have stated before the sale o f the loan they wans to insure it.

My compliance company said that around 1/3rd of complaints they are getting at present do not even have the product being complained about. Most of those are claims company generated.

Someone on here posted they work with car finance and their try-it-on level if closer to 50% of complaints not having it.

It was thought that around 1/3rd of endowment complaints were opportunistic. Going back to the pensions review, the person that set up the review at the time has admitted that too many people got paid redress when they were not entitled to it.

The FSA has to take a lot of the flack for this. PPI has been sold this way for about 20 years. Why didnt they approach the banks and warn them years ago?

When Cartel and Kerobo closed down and took all those £495 people paid with them, I had no sympathy for those that paid. They were greedy try-it-ons and lost £495 because of it.

We know people have been mis-sold. Where that is the case, they are entitled to get a refund. This thread is not about the genuine complaints. So, please do not try and make this appear as the posters on this thread are against that. This is purely against the fraudulent and try-it-ons. Remember that every fraudulent and try-it-on complaint makes the genuine complaints suffer. It takes longer to deal with the complaint as the try-it-ons clog up the system. Also, it creates cynicism by the complaints handler if they see what is an obvious try-it-on and that person has used a known dodgy claims company. Then if a genuine complaint has used that same dodgy company (or template that is known to be used by the dodgy) then they get pigeon holed as a potential try-it-on.

So, if you are someone with a genuine complaint, remember that these try-it-on people are damaging you as well.

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

Going back to the pensions review, the person that set up the review at the time has admitted that too many people got paid redress when they were not entitled to it.

A chairman of the FSA also acknowledged that redress was being paid to people who did not deserve it for mortgage endowments as well.

The_Loan_Ranger

magpiecottage wrote: »

It is actually an offence, under the Fraud Act 2006, to make a falsified statement in an attempt to receive redress for yourself or somebody else.

Nobody has actually prosecuted a claimant yet. If a businesses was able to prove it and had the will to do so, I suspect it would change the whole culture of complaining.

I also suspect the FSA would be unhappy if a firm did attempt a prosecution but would find it very difficult to prevent because it has its own statutory duty to reduce financial crime.

Clearly redress should be paid for those who are the victims of misselling but all redress paid puts up costs for us all and fraudulent complaints should be prevented.

I deal with at least 5 claims a week directly from Customers which include sentences such as 'I was pressurised by the salesman and told I wouldn't get finance if I didn't agree to have a PPI' etc - and they don't have a PPI. I won't mention the reams of letters from CMC's such as 'We Flaunt any claims' 'Claims !!!!-visory Service' 'Blagstone Crooks' 'Toucan Claims (a deceased Parrot)' where they don't have a PPI and quite often don't have a bloody account!

I blame sites like this and the American influnced money grabbing society we now live in. No honour amongst thieves and there are plenty of thieves about. Never mind the banks.

~Brock~

What I would like to know is why the FOS have not acted upon the recommendation to charge CMC's for their dodgy claims.

This recommendation has been very clearly made to them in a recent high profile review of the ombudsman service by Lord Hunt, and is publicised on their very own website !!

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/news/Hunt_report.pdf
Sections 8.7 and 8.8 to be exact.

dunstonh

marshallka wrote: »

Did you ever do anything dunstonh for what Carl Wright (Cartel) wrote about you on their site when they closed down? He had it in for you and Petermb didn't he. Does anyone know what happened to him and is he still trading. Did MOJ ever release any details? I have just googled and seems nothing other than they were closed down?

He threatened me and the board with legal action. The board capitulated and deleted the threads. I never heard a thing again after they collapsed. Since then the board hasnt been deleting threads on Cartel (probably as they dont exist as a legal entity any more). However, the board does seem to be editing posts from other [STRIKE]scam[/STRIKE] claims companies.

Last I heard on Cartel was the directors took a ton of money out of the business when it was still trading and left the company with virtually no assets when it collapsed. Carl Wright is reported to have taken £790,000 out personally. There was around £20,000,000 of upfront fees paid.

It makes you wonder why police haven't investigated it as an advance fee fraud.

it is also a shame that the board did not take time to look into it and decided that deleting posts about dodgy claims companies was the better option. Its also a shame that Martin is still giving media snippets telling people that claims companies can speed things up. I wonder how many people would avoid being scammed if MSE actually looked into some of these claims companies.

marshallka

dunstonh wrote: »

He threatened me and the board with legal action. The board capitulated and deleted the threads. I never heard a thing again after they collapsed. Since then the board hasnt been deleting threads on Cartel (probably as they dont exist as a legal entity any more). However, the board does seem to be editing posts from other [STRIKE]scam[/STRIKE] claims companies.

Last I heard on Cartel was the directors took a ton of money out of the business when it was still trading and left the company with virtually no assets when it collapsed. Carl Wright is reported to have taken £790,000 out personally. There was around £20,000,000 of upfront fees paid.

It makes you wonder why police haven't investigated it as an advance fee fraud.

it is also a shame that the board did not take time to look into it and decided that deleting posts about dodgy claims companies was the better option. Its also a shame that Martin is still giving media snippets telling people that claims companies can speed things up. I wonder how many people would avoid being scammed if MSE actually looked into some of these claims companies.

He will have talked his way out of it I bet.

I have never heard Martin say its speedier with a CMC? I know he has mentioned them for claims not within FOS jurisdiction and when people cannot (mentally that is) make the claim themselves.


Who says MSE are not doing something already? I know they have "pending investigation" on a few CMC posts. These things take time.

I often wonder whether half the posts on here were from CMC's posing as consumers. I have a feeling they are TBH. Another thing I wonder is if the CMC's are being paid by the banks and finance firms to "hinder" people making claims. I know its a warped way of looking at it but I posted it a couple of years ago and I still think it now. They have held onto claims since final responses and now consumers have no way of using FOS or the courts. They could all be working hand in hand for what we know. :rotfl:

dunstonh

I have never heard Martin say its speedier with a CMC? I know he has mentioned them for claims not within FOS jurisdiction and when people cannot (mentally that is) make the claim themselves.

He did on Watchdog a few weeks back.

Who says MSE are not doing something already? I know they have "pending investigation" on a few CMC posts. These things take time.

Lets hope so. However, if that was the case, wouldnt you want to distance yourself from CMCs rather than suggest that people can use them.

I often wonder whether half the posts on here were from CMC's posing as consumers. I have a feeling they are TBH.

You have been here long enough to spot them. I dont think we get the same blatant ones that we used to see a few years ago though.

Another thing I wonder is if the CMC's are being paid by the banks and finance firms to "hinder" people making claims.

God no. Claims companies are generally viewed with total disdain by firms. Many have an awful reputation.