Claim Advice Service/Simply Credit Claims - Scam letters

debtinfo

Hello All,

Well i made a phonecall to simply credit claims recently to see what they have to back up there letters. I didnt argue with them or point out any of the points i have mentioned on here before but simply asked a few questions as below, please note that this is not a transcript and if i recall any part wrong i should be happy to change it and that whilst i believe that the person i spoke to is wrong he was generally sincere sounding and not at all pushy.

Well i started by telling him that i was enquiring on behalf of some people that i know who were bankrupt's and had recieved some of their letters regarding somesort of compensation based on a court ruling last year, and that i was calling as i generallyy understand these things a little better:).

He said that the compensation was to do with reclaiming PPI and that many bankrupts will have had PPI and much of it may have been mis-sold

I asked what court case the letters were refering to.

He said it was the decision to award PPI claims to millions of people

I asked if this was specifically about bankrupts and he confirmed that it was not, it was the general one for everyone and there is nothing specific to bankrupts in it.

I asked how we knew that we could trust them, ie what registration they had, and he confirmed that they were authourised by the Ministry of Justice and so could take these claims forward.

I told him that the people i was representing obviously did not want to do anything wrong and they thought that the OR had taken all of their assets when they went bankrupt.

He said that he thought that because the court case last year was after people had bee discharged that that is when the asset was created and so was not part of their bankruptcy and so a claim could be made.

He also added that he knew that there was disagreement by OR's about whether it was a bankruptcy asset or not.

At that point i thanked him for his time and left it at that.



So in conclusion there is no court hearing that we are unaware of and their claims are on the basis that they believe that the asset came into existance when the general court decision re reclaiming PPI was made

this is what the OR's Technical manual says on the subject (note that it was written after the court hearing)

31.9.61 Mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)(amended August 2011)
Payment Protection Insurance is an insurance policy typically sold when a personal loan or some other form of personal credit is granted. The policy is designed to provide monies to meet the repayments of the loan in the event of the unemployment (or similar) of the borrower. There has been some concern that such policies have been sold in circumstances where the individuals to whom they were sold would not have been able to benefit from the policy (where, for example they were too old to qualify or already insured), or where the policy was not properly described on sale, or where they did not realise they were buying PPI.
A claim for mis-selling would normally be made to the financial institution concerned directly, followed by a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman if the initial approach was unsuccessful and would vest in the official receiver, as trustee, as it arises from the contract for insurance.


and


31.9.31b Dealing with a complaint/claim for mis-selling of PPI (added August 2011)

Following the unsuccessful challenge by the British Banking Association to the guidelines issued by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) for dealing with PPI complaints (see paragraph 31.9.61) URL="http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/freedomofinformation/technical/TechnicalManual/Ch25-36/Chapter31/part9/part2/part%202%20notes.htm#8"][COLOR=#0066cc]note 8[/COLOR][/URL, it is anticipated such complaints will be settled by the financial institutions without the complainant needing to seek recourse to the Financial Ombudsman. The FSA guidance requires that banks analyse past sales for the purpose of identifying and compensating victims of mis-selling, so compensation may be payable to a bankrupt even if he/she has not been actively pursuing a claim.
As outlined in paragraph 31.9.61, a complaint for mis-selling of PPI, or compensation paid in this regard would vest in the official receiver as trustee of the bankruptcy estate.
Where a bankrupt is pursuing a claim for mis-selling of a PPI policy prior to the bankruptcy order (see paragraph 31.9.61), the claim is one that vests in the official receiver as trustee who may continue the claim, following the financial institution’s complaints procedure (notifying the financial institution of his/her interest in the claim), or the process set down by the Financial Ombudsman (www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/.../FONT>), as the case may be, taking into account the effect of the right of set-off (see paragraph 31.9.208a).

debt_doctor

That's good work DI, and clears up 'the mystery' in that there is no mysterious court Judgement and that these companies are PLAIN WRONG!
In all probability the guy you spoke to had been 'trained' to think what he was saying was correct, but surely the MOJ now must address this situation.
DD

debtinfo

yep, although it is easy to doubt ones self when they are so insistant in their letters and you cant challange them directly to prove what they are saying

StuntmanBob

Excellent thread, thanks all.

So I received one of the "new style" letter this morning. No Valentine card for me, just this letter !!

I'm happy to send copies to the Claims Regulator and Insolvency Service, as suggested, but what exactly am I complaining about?

There is a clear implication from the letter that I can claim compensation (although PPI is not mentioned per se). It's also clear from the extract from the OR guide (posted earlier in this thread) that even if any compensation were due, it would go to the OR.

In my case co compensation wouldn't be due as I've always studiously avoided PPI.

So my complaint is little more than I've been sent a mis-leading letter which appears to be targeting the vulnerable.

Thanks again for this superb thread, I'm glad I now know what this is all about.

--Bob

didaiva

Simply Credit claims are doing ex-iva's too. Completed in May 2011 and they have just wrote to me. I've asked where they got my details from, and where it was processed from.

They refused to tell me.

So I have put a complaint into the the Information Commissioner, everyone else should do the same and then something might be done about these tramps.

newonee

didaiva wrote: »

Simply Credit claims are doing ex-iva's too. Completed in May 2011 and they have just wrote to me. I've asked where they got my details from, and where it was processed from.

They refused to tell me.

So I have put a complaint into the the Information Commissioner, everyone else should do the same and then something might be done about these tramps.

i got one of those this morning as well, i'm wondering if theres somewhere that records a list of completed iva's since they seem to be targeting people who completed before aug 2011, on the plus side i guess having completion certificates its one can of worms i'm not personally going ot touch especially given that one of those ppi things was forced to payout and halved my debt total

didaiva

I suspect someone has stored a old copy of the Insolvency Register through a subscription, and by storing this out of date information are breaking the data protection act, keeping data longer than necessary, no longer acurate and processing it unfairly. Also contains sensitive data, my IVA is private and they posted the fact I entered a IVA into the post, and they do not meet one of the conditions in schedule 3 of the DPA for processing sensitive data.

They have no company number and a MOJ reference number I've been unable to verify or complain to. Still put a complaint into the ICO as they refuse to tell me who has supplied them with my data. May do the Mailing Preference Service too as I'm registered on that and they have not cleaned their list against their files.

fermi

Just noticed a link to this on the CCCS thread.

Payment protection insurance mis-selling claims and bankruptcy

Payment protection insurance (PPI) mis-selling claims and bankruptcy

PPI mis-selling guidelines

Following the recent publication by the Financial Services Authority of proposed guidelines for firms that sold PPI policies and their contact with customers who may have been mis-sold a policy, but have yet to complain, the following information may be useful to persons who became bankrupt after the sale of a PPI policy.

A PPI mis-selling claim: a bankruptcy asset

Following provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986, The Insolvency Service takes the view that if a PPI policy was mis-sold before the date of an individual’s bankruptcy, any claim relating to the alleged mis-selling of the policy is owned by the official receiver or trustee of the bankruptcy estate, not the individual to whom the policy was sold.

Discharge from bankruptcy does not alter the position

Discharge from bankruptcy does not alter this position. Discharge does not operate to transfer unrealised assets, including PPI mis-selling claims, back to the individual.

Considering a PPI mis-selling claim: refer to the official receiver or trustee

If a (former) bankrupt considers that a PPI policy was mis-sold, they should not attempt to pursue a mis-selling claim without reference to the official receiver or trustee.

If a claim has already been made, the official receiver or trustee should be informed of the claim and the person against whom the claim is being made should be informed of the bankruptcy

Use of claims management companies

The Insolvency Service is aware that some (former) bankrupts have used claims management companies to pursue PPI mis-selling claims for them. If these services are used after the date of the bankruptcy order, it is possible that the individual will remain responsible for all or part of the commission charged if an award is paid to the official receiver or trustee. This may be because the amount of the commission is challenged by the trustee or if the firm against which the award is made is a creditor in the bankruptcy and exercises a right to set-off the award against its claim in the bankruptcy. This could result in no payment being made from which the commission could be paid.

As such, care should be taken before acting in this way.

Best course of action: contact the official receiver or trustee

The best course of action for any individual contemplating making a PPI mis-selling claim who is or has been affected by bankruptcy is to contact the official receiver or trustee dealing with their case before proceeding further.

debtinfo

Fermi, i dont think they can make it clearer than that

fermi

debtinfo wrote: »

Fermi, i dont think they can make it clearer than that

Not without saying that they will come after you with their size 14s swinging if you try to claim and keep the money. :rotfl:

But yes, it's crystal clear.

And is a much needed poke in the eye for the claims companies that deliberately try to con people into believing you are entitled to make the claim and to the money if you are discharged.