PPI fraud

marshallka

dunstonh wrote: »

He did on Watchdog a few weeks back.



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.



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.



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

No, must admit things have changed on here thinking about it. I was targeted good style if I said that someone maybe did not have a complaint and gave an objective view some time ago. I have not been targeted so "much" since coming back on but I am not so objective now as I was lol. (but getting targeted for the opposite now sometimes!!).

CMC's are an option and that is all. If people pay them so be it. They are being allowed to rip people off by the MOJ. Perhaps people should make a class action against MOJ for not doing something because they must have loads of complaints about certain companies and they allow them to close and open up with the same directors. They do have a lot to answer for don't you think?

I do think that what magpiecottage said about fraudulent claims for consumers should also work the same for firms. There are people that have had solid proof of misselling that could be classed as "fraud" too but the banks and firms are getting off with just paying it back with 8% statutory interest. People often do not do this out of greed and rather need. Banks did it out of "greed"..... they just wanted more and more so it can work both ways. Has anyone ever taken the Bank to court for fraud? Why do some only see it ONE way?

Some people will NEVER get back on their feet again after being subjected to more debt they did not want, did not need and could not use. Circumstances can sometimes cause debts and not greed always.

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

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.

Oh and for the record magpie cottage. I have now dropped my complaint against Pinnacle as I feel that I will never win regardless. There that is one out of the queue for the Ombudsman so have a drink on me. You obviously thought that my complaint was not "credible" and that Pinnacle had not said or done anything wrong. The adjudicator rang actually just after I had posted to you on my thread (it was so strange TBH, it was as if she had read my thread!!!) and said that although I had letters and had sent them to her she still had not changed her view in that my complaint would be upheld. She asked if it would be better to get the complaint out of the queue for the Ombudsman AND relook into it again at adjudicator level and ask Pinnacle for some more info although she doubted they would have the calls as it was over 6 years ago. I had letters to say dates and times but it was still not enough. The firm was more credible than us the consumer.

I told her that I still wanted it going to the Ombudsman but we emailed today to cancel as the stress it is causing is not really worth it. I am getting obsessed with looking up rules.......Thought I would let you know so that you cannot add me to your list of fraudulent claimants!! That is how I felt you saw me. We were over insured and I will leave it there.

I have learnt some things though about having a PHI policy and MPPI and not being able to be insured for over 75% of your income. I just hope it helps others too and that it has highlighted a problem in this area. Everyone wants to help themselves and not have to rely on the state but sometimes we just do not know these things even when reading terms and conditions.

magpiecottage

marshallka wrote: »

Thought I would let you know so that you cannot add me to your list of fraudulent claimants!! That is how I felt you saw me. We were over insured and I will leave it there.

I never took you to have been claiming fraudulently. You simply did not seem to have sufficient evidence to persuade me that it was more likely than not that the insurer, rather than an intermediary, caused you a loss by misleading you.

Annisele

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.

As I understand it, you can only be guilty of fraud by misrepresentation if you make your statements dishonestly. A statement which is false, and obviously false, is not necessarily dishonest.

That makes it very hard to get CMCs under the Fraud Act. So, I'd like some kind of CMC-specific offence preventing firms regulated by the MoJ from being reckless as to the truth or otherwise of their statements. (And I'd also like the MoJ to actually do some regulating; it would be nice if the RDR qualification requirements also applied to complaint handlers).

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

I never took you to have been claiming fraudulently. You simply did not seem to have sufficient evidence to persuade me that it was more likely than not that the insurer, rather than an intermediary, caused you a loss by misleading you.

rather than an intermediary??????

I am sorry I don't understand your terminology here? If you are referring to Pinnacle I understood that Pinnacle were both insurer and imtermediary? It was a helpupay policy? Are you referring to something else here?

Are you saying my complaint was against the wrong ones?

marshallka

~Brock~ wrote: »

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.

So are they thinking of charging complainants as well

[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Charging Complainants[/FONT][/FONT]

8.5 A number of respondents to the call for evidence, including the Consumer Credit Association and Association of Independent Financial Advisers, urged me to recommend the introduction of charges for complainants to the FOS. Such fees, which would be refunded if a complaint were upheld, would, it is argued, deter vexatious complainants and so prevent businesses incurring case fees unfairly. On the other hand, I received strong representations from the All-Party Group and [FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Which? [/FONT][/FONT]warning that the introduction of case fees could not be justified.


8.6 I have some sympathy with both small businesses and the Ombudsman Service itself when faced with time-consuming vexatious complaints, but the way to handle such cases is through clear and transparent filtering rather than the blanket imposition of fees. I doubt whether many of the vexatious would truly be deterred – many would press their case regardless, whilst others would pursue legal action at potentially greater cost to the company. I think it far more probable that many complainants – including the most vulnerable – would be deterred from advancing even cases that have obvious merit, particularly in claims of comparatively low value. From the perspective of accessibility, this cannot be the right solution. We must not allow the tiresome minority of vexatious complainants to poison the well in a way that would disadvantage the honest majority.



[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]I therefore recommend that the FOS should not [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]introduce fees for consumers.[/FONT][/FONT]


8.7 I do, however, consider that there is a case for the FOS charging a case fee to claims management companies when they present a case which is judged to be vexatious. It is reasonable to expect that regulated companies should not inflict totally frivolous work on a statutory body. Regulation should ensure that the cost of such fees is not charged either to the complainant or to the firm or individual against whom the vexatious claim has been made.

[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]I recommend that the FOS should introduce a case fee for [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]vexatious claims put forward by claims management companies and work with the Ministry of Justice to put protection in place to prevent such fees being [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]passed to consumers.[/FONT][/FONT]

8.8 More broadly, I believe that there is an increasingly strong case for claims management companies to contribute to the FOS levy, given the commercial benefit they derive from the existence of the service.

[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]I recommend that the FOS should work with the FSA and the Ministry of Justice [FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]to broaden the base of FOS levypayers to include regulated claims managers.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

~Brock~

Not sure what you mean by that?

I never said I wanted consumers to be charged....because I don't. It should remain free for consumers.

CMC's however, who are supposed to be professional (even in the loosest sense of the word) should know whether their clients complaint has got legs or not, and should not be allowed to swamp (which is what they are doing) a resource, set up for the benefit of consumers generally, with false, fabricated and vexatious claims with absolutely no recourse for the damage that they cause. They should be charged a fee for doing this.

I find it rather annoying that this has already been recommended to them as part of a high level report that it commissioned itself, and yet seems to have done nothing about it. The wording of the report - kindly reproduced by you - seems very clear to me and I agree with every word.

Alpine_Star

~Brock~ wrote: »

I find it rather annoying that this has already been recommended to them as part of a high level report that it commissioned itself, and yet seems to have done nothing about it.

The problem is that it's not something the FOS could do unilaterally as it would require consultation and a change in legislation - presumably schedule 17 of the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/8/schedule/17 although I agree it should be done.

marshallka

~Brock~ wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by that?

I never said I wanted consumers to be charged....because I don't. It should remain free for consumers.

CMC's however, who are supposed to be professional (even in the loosest sense of the word) should know whether their clients complaint has got legs or not, and should not be allowed to swamp (which is what they are doing) a resource, set up for the benefit of consumers generally, with false, fabricated and vexatious claims with absolutely no recourse for the damage that they cause. They should be charged a fee for doing this.

I find it rather annoying that this has already been recommended to them as part of a high level report that it commissioned itself, and yet seems to have done nothing about it. The wording of the report - kindly reproduced by you - seems very clear to me and I agree with every word.

I wasn't saying "you" wanted Consumers charged, I was meaning it was under consideration from that document you posted but looks like it won't happen.

If it did it would most likely give more work to CMC's because people would no doubt want to try the courts for writing off their entire agreements...... !!

magpiecottage

Annisele wrote: »

As I understand it, you can only be guilty of fraud by misrepresentation if you make your statements dishonestly. A statement which is false, and obviously false, is not necessarily dishonest.

I am not sure that it is. Section 2(2) of the Fraud Act says "A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading."

I think the words "might be" are important in the context of the use of standard templates where no critical consideration of their validity has been given - particularly if this is not something the consumer actually mentioned to them.

So, I'd like some kind of CMC-specific offence preventing firms regulated by the MoJ from being reckless as to the truth or otherwise of their statements.

I like that idea - it would certainly make things clearer.

(And I'd also like the MoJ to actually do some regulating

That would certainly be good to see.

it would be nice if the RDR qualification requirements also applied to complaint handlers

And Ombudsmen. It is, on the whole, relatively easy to tell, from reading the documentation whether it was reasonable to expect somebody to read it and, if it was, whether it was reasonable to expect them to understand what it meant.

Or at least I always thought so, until I saw a letter to FOS complaining about an adjudicator which was simply passed to that adjudicator who promptly ignored it.

If you cannot recognise a blatant complaint against yourself, I cannot see how you can possibly be capable of adjudicating between two soft boiled eggs, let alone a complex financial dispute!