We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
PPI and Claims Advisory Group...
Comments
-
I would complain that such a term is "unfair" under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. However, that presupposes that it even exists. If it does not then you can complain that they are trying to enforce it at all.Chances are also the contract will have allowed them to investigate all of your accounts for PPI hence them finding the loan that you had already claimed back?
Roll on jurisdiction of the Legal Ombudsman in three weeks or so.0 -
magpiecottage wrote: »I would complain that such a term is "unfair" under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. However, that presupposes that it even exists. If it does not then you can complain that they are trying to enforce it at all.
Roll on jurisdiction of the Legal Ombudsman in three weeks or so.
Bingo - from their Ts & Cs first page:2. The Service
2.1 We will request and gather documentation and
information that we believe are relevant to your claim or
claims for compensation. This applies to all policies,
loans, credit cards, other products and accounts whether
or not they are specifically referred to in the Letter of
Authority
http://claimsadvisorygroup.co.uk/resource/docs/terms_and_conditions.pdf
So whether it's sound or not I wouldn't like to guess at but it was as I suspected - Greig82 asked them to look into an account for him but they put the feelers out to ALL his accounts, found the loan, tried to claim back, found it was already claimed back and then have billed him. It does seem odd they could bill him for their own stupidity in not checking if the account was already reclaimed though!Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
So whether it's sound or not I wouldn't like to guess at but it was as I suspected - Greig82 asked them to look into an account for him but they put the feelers out to ALL his accounts, found the loan, tried to claim back, found it was already claimed back and then have billed him. It does seem odd they could bill him for their own stupidity in not checking if the account was already reclaimed though!
There is nothing in the clause you quoted or in fact anywhere in their T&Cs that allows them to levy a fee in the circumstances described by the OP.0 -
Alpine_Star wrote: »There is nothing in the clause you quoted or in fact anywhere in their T&Cs that allows them to levy a fee in the circumstances described by the OP.
They'd probably do it under 6.1.1 - depending what the agreement the OP signed but I agree they shouldn't be able to bill him over this bit - just pointing out why people should read Ts & Cs carefully - a catch-all clause like this gives them the freedom to poke around in every account you ever had even if it was just one thing you wanted to look atSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
They'd probably do it under 6.1.1 - depending what the agreement the OP signed but I agree they shouldn't be able to bill him over this bit - just pointing out why people should read Ts & Cs carefully - a catch-all clause like this gives them the freedom to poke around in every account you ever had even if it was just one thing you wanted to look at
6.1.1 only applies in the event the customer breaks the agreement which is not the case from what the OP has said.0 -
A catch-all risks being interpreted as putting an imbalance in the standard contract against the consumer.They'd probably do it under 6.1.1 - depending what the agreement the OP signed but I agree they shouldn't be able to bill him over this bit - just pointing out why people should read Ts & Cs carefully - a catch-all clause like this gives them the freedom to poke around in every account you ever had even if it was just one thing you wanted to look at
In addition, if there is any ambiguity in it this would be interpreted in the manner most favourable to the consumer.
Put simply, if push came to shove, I think the CMC would need to prove that it would have been quite clear to the consumer that they would charge if they pursued an already settled claim.0 -
magpiecottage wrote: »A catch-all risks being interpreted as putting an imbalance in the standard contract against the consumer.
In addition, if there is any ambiguity in it this would be interpreted in the manner most favourable to the consumer.
Put simply, if push came to shove, I think the CMC would need to prove that it would have been quite clear to the consumer that they would charge if they pursued an already settled claim.
Let us hope so and that the OP can get out of this demand for payment!Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
I think Greig82 should now put in a complaint about the invoice and if necessary take it to the Legal Ombudsman.0
-
Claims Advisory Group must be one of the worst companies for PPI reclaim. There is no advisory about it. They charge 39% to send you the documents to complete. Then they send you more forms for you to complete, then they forward your completed forms to your debtors and then you hear nothing from them for months until you receive an offer and then they hound you which borders harassment. They give misleading information and argue with you if you ask any questions. These people are terrible.0
-
the thing is people always say 'i cant remember signing it' - you probably did.
now youve received the money you understandably dont want to part with 39% of it.
CAGS partner company all owned by the same man as Baines and Ernst are called Transac Solutions based in Salford. They collect all the PPR invoices.
If you bargain with them you can easily get up to 60% off your fee invoice0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.2K Spending & Discounts
- 247K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards