Misselling by Ambulance Chasers

magpiecottage

A number of posts raise concerns about the misselling of services by claims management companies.

I have therefore decided to provide a post which specifically explains possible grounds for complaining if a firm has missold its services to you. You will need to complain to the firm itself in the first instance and, if you do not receive a satisfactory response, to the Ministry of Justice.


The reference material I have used is the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2007, published by their regulator, the Ministry of Justice. a breach of any of these rules could amount to grounds for complaint.

If you go to page 6, you will see there are "Client Specific Rules".
Rule 1a says they must "Act fairly and reasonably in dealings with all clients". If they have not then you have grounds for complaint.

Rule 1b says they must "Ensure that any service offered is one that meets the needs of the
client and satisfies the requirements of these Rules". If you needed a "no win, no fee" agreement then it has not met your needs and you have grounds for complaint.

Rule 1c says "Ensure that all information given to the client is clear, transparent, fair
and not misleading." If it was not made clear to you at outset that a fee would be payable regardless of the outcome you have grounds for complaint.

Rule 1f says, "Where advice is given, advise the client to pursue cases only if it is in
the interests of the client to do so." This is particularly relevant to bank charges because if they intend to charge a fee regardless of outcome it is unlikely to be in your best interests because of the outcome of the court case. Indeed, once it became apparent that the case was going to court there was always a significant risk that the banks would win and no redress would be payable. So if they indicated they could get money back for you there are grounds for complaint.

Bank-Smart's website says of this: "
Bank-Smart are experts in reclaiming client’s 6 years worth of unfair charges with interest. ....

The legality of personal account charges has been dropped by the Office of Fair Trading. Bank-Smart can still process your claim and demand a refund of charges, particuarly (sic) where you can demonstrate financial hardship."

The word "particularly" (assuming that is what is meant) is significant because it infers that charges can be recovered in other circumstances when, in reality, the chances are virtually nil.


Moving on, Rule 10 says, "Before seeking to enter into a contract with a client a business must make
reasonable enquiries as to whether the client has alternative mechanisms for pursuing a claim".

Did they check whether you had legal expenses cover with your household insurance? Or whether there was a legal helpline with your insurance (even legal expenses cover with your car will often have a helpline on other legal matters) or with your employer, or even the Citizens' Advice Bureau? If not you have grounds for complaint.

Rule 11a requires them to provide "Honest, comprehensive and objective written information to assist the client to reach a decision including the risks involved in making a claim, in particular the possibility of losing money and, in the case of legal action, appearing in court."

Did they make clear to you that you would have to pay even if no redress was awarded? If not you can complain.

Rule 11b requires them to provide details of "The services that will be provided, in a way that does not misrepresent, either by implication or omission, any term or condition or by whom the service will be provided."

If you were led to believe it was "no win no fee" you have grounds for complaint if they are charging you for their failure.

Rule 11e requires them to provide details of "Any charge the business makes". This is probably in the documents given to you. However, all the requirements of Rule 11 must be met PRIOR to the contract's commencement and if it was not made clear to you that you would pay a fee come what may you have grounds for complaint.



Rule 12 says "Where a claim is one that falls within the province of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Housing Ombudsman Service or any other recognised dispute resolution procedure, the business must not suggest that a claimant will have a more favourable outcome if he uses the services of the business."

I have put in the full wording because Bank-Smart seem to think you can claim for anything. (In some cases it is merely a tax rebate!). However, if they suggested they could get a more favourable result from the Financial Ombudsman Service you have grounds for complaint.


Rule 13 says "A business must make explicit to the client his right to seek further advice or
to shop around, subject to any time limits within which a claim must be made." If they did not tell you then you can complain that, had they done so, you would have chosen a no win no fee company instead. This looks to be very difficult for them to defend.

Rule 14 says "A business must take reasonable steps to ensure that the client is able to
understand the contract that he is being asked to agree to."

Again - if you did not understand that it was not a no win no fee agreement you have grounds for complaint.

If you are not satisfied with their response you can take your complaint to the Ministry of Justice.

kalikin

very useful

magpiecottage

Intended to be.

Better not to get involved with them in the first place, though.

crazyguy

magpiecottage wrote: »

Intended to be.

Better not to get involved with them in the first place, though.

Well done Magpiecottage,

However me thinks a lot more people will still create a thread and fail to look for this first, but at least rather than explain the rules people can guide them here.

It never ceases to amaze me that some people do no research before signing on the dotted line with Companies like this.

Nuttygooner

I managed to discourage my older brother from using one of these collective of charlatans for his PPI claim(s).

These "Claims Management Experts" have access to exactly the same info as we do, so we're all better off carrying out our own claims :money:

Milliman

crazyguy wrote: »

Well done Magpiecottage,

However me thinks a lot more people will still create a thread and fail to look for this first, but at least rather than explain the rules people can guide them here.

It never ceases to amaze me that some people do no research before signing on the dotted line with Companies like this.

it is slightly different when your young and brash such as me. specially when your a university graduate out of work and looking for money, you dont consider the consquences later on only whats in front of you than and there. but you are right research research research every company

magpiecottage

crazyguy wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me that some people do no research before signing on the dotted line with Companies like this.

Particularly when it was signing up for the PPI without first researching that caused the problem in the first place.

magpiecottage

I am putting in a new e-mail template for those who have been[TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM] paying up front fees. It should be sent [TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM] and copied in to [EMAIL="info@claimsregulation.gov.uk"]info@claimsregulation.gov.uk[/EMAIL].

I have put it in red so you know which bits to copy and paste.

FORMAL COMPLAINT

Following your unsolicited call on [date], you have debited £[amount] from my account.

As you are, or ought to be, fully aware, your regulator, the Ministry of Justice has said

"We are aware that many businesses take ‘up-front’ fees. But some businesses taking up front fees may be failing to provide prospective clients with compulsory, pre-contract information as required by the Conduct of Authorised Person Rules 2007. We are also aware that some businesses are not giving clients a reasonable period in which to consider the information. In particular some businesses take card details and / or payment during an initial marketing telephone call.
This is not permitted by the rules for the following reasons:
What the rules say
Rule 1(a) requires businesses to "Act fairly and reasonably in dealings with all clients".
Rule 11 requires a business to provide specific information in writing (electronic versions are sufficient) before a contract is agreed (details below).
General Rule 5 requires a business to “observe all laws and regulations relating to its business.”
The Provision of Services Regulations 2009, Regulation 11 requires businesses to provide certain information (which includes the information in Rule 11) to be provided “in good time before the conclusion of a contract …”
What this means for your business and up-front fees
Whilst you can take a payment or fee from a client before providing the service you must first provide the required information to clients. The purpose of Rule 11 is to enable clients to make an informed choice based on the pre-contract information provided.
You must not take a payment or fee before this pre-contract information is provided in writing and the prospective client has had reasonable time to consider the information. A reasonable time is not defined, as what might be reasonable for one person would not necessarily be reasonable for another. But we would always consider it unreasonable to provide the information at the point of contact – whether it is a cold call or the prospective client contacted the business – and request a payment or fee."

Clearly, therefore, you had no authority to take any payment from my account at this time and I demand that it is immediately refunded.

Furthermore, since you have unlawfully taken money from my account I consider that you are neither fit nor proper and I do not want you to act for me.

I note also that your regulator has said:

"Failure to comply with this warning is likely to lead to enforcement action being taken against the business concerned and could ultimately put the business’s authorisation at risk. The MoJ’s Monitoring and Compliance Unit has launched a fresh compliance exercise to tackle such breaches."

I am therefore sending a copy of this e-mail to your regulator.

Freedomland

Hi All,

It has been over a year when I called GB PPI claiming company. After listening about my case, they asked £50 but I said I didn't have £50 but accepted to £pay £10 instead, to start the procedure. There were PPI claims for my CC and Loans. I got CC PPI within a few months and paid the the 25%+VAT.

For my loans the bank refused therefore the case went to FOS and now the bank has agreed to pay after over a year.

I heard and now I can understand how straight forward it is to put a claim forward.

At the time I made the claim, I was lead (mis-lead) to believe (based on the ads) that an individual (myself) cold not do it and needed expert advice/intervention.

£25+vat is lot.

Since I was 'mis-lead' into believing that I needed their expert advice and did not inform me that I could do it on my own:

1. Can I launch a complaint and ask to annul/void the contract.
2. and when GB said no, what would be their possible actions?
3. Would be better to go through the court to argue the case and may be set a precedent?

What else, please.

It's my hard earn money and it's a huge chunk the want from it.

Thank you all for reading...

magpiecottage

You can only complain if they have breached the MOJ rules - see here.

There is also guidance for firms here. The bottom right hand corner of the first page makes the point that they must tell you unambiguously about FOS. If they didn't do that you have valid ground for complaint.

If they rejected your complaint you could take it to the Claims Regulator - email consumer@claimsregulation.gov.uk

You have to let the firm respond first, though.

Freedomland

Thank you magpie, I will look into your suggestions.

if I declined to pay under the 'mislead' ground and they take me to court or a claim company to harass me?

If I lose the the case what would be the likely cost ..the actual amount (25%+vat)+court cost/fee...any other cost?

Thanks