MSE News: Banks wrongly reject PPI complaints, despite admitting mis-selling

ppidisgrace

what do you base that on?

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

what do you base that on? easy for who? rather than generalise and make comments without foundation, could you back them up please

Lets start with the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2007. You may not be familiar with these but you should be.

Client specific rule 12, on page 8 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."

You have just broken that rule - again!

The Financial Ombudsman Service has indicated that it expects you to have "Completed the payment protection insurance consumer questionnaire as fully as possible – and sent it to the financial business to help it assess the complaint. There is a practical guide on our website to help with completing this form."

I have yet to see a complaint from a a CMC where the questionnaire has been included.

It also says before that you should have "Obtained relevant paperwork from the consumer where this is available – and carried out a preliminary check of the credit card statements or loan documentation, to attempt to establish whether a PPI policy exists."

If that had been done presumably my clients would not keep getting complaints about policies that don't exist.

For consumers who think they have a valid complaint, click on the link, print off the questionnaire, fill it in, take a copy and send it off. Fax it if you can (so you get an instant receipt) or post it and get proof of posting (free from the Post Office). Hang on to the receipt/proof of posting.

Allow to "simmer" for nine weeks (including a week to allow for the post).

If you do not get a response by then, or get a "final response" that is not to your satisfaction before then go to FOS. Even allowing for the increase in the price of postage next week, this will cost you just £1.00.

ppidisgrace

magpiecottage wrote: »

Lets start with the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2007. You may not be familiar with these but you should be.

Client specific rule 12, on page 8 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."

You have just broken that rule - again!

The Financial Ombudsman Service has indicated that it expects you to have "Completed the payment protection insurance consumer questionnaire as fully as possible – and sent it to the financial business to help it assess the complaint. There is a practical guide on our website to help with completing this form."

I have yet to see a complaint from a a CMC where the questionnaire has been included.

It also says before that you should have "Obtained relevant paperwork from the consumer where this is available – and carried out a preliminary check of the credit card statements or loan documentation, to attempt to establish whether a PPI policy exists."

If that had been done presumably my clients would not keep getting complaints about policies that don't exist.

For consumers who think they have a valid complaint, click on the link, print off the questionnaire, fill it in, take a copy and send it off. Fax it if you can (so you get an instant receipt) or post it and get proof of posting (free from the Post Office). Hang on to the receipt/proof of posting.

Allow to "simmer" for nine weeks (including a week to allow for the post).

If you do not get a response by then, or get a "final response" that is not to your satisfaction before then go to FOS. Even allowing for the increase in the price of postage next week, this will cost you just £1.00.

the business must not suggest that a claimant will have a more favourable outcome if he uses the services of the business."


a more favourable outcome in the event the customer actually does receive an offer, gets through the dirty tricks, and then the offer is along fos guidelines, yes noone can suggest that an offer can be achieved in excess of fos guidelines
but surely you dont suggest every offer a bank sends out, is as per fos guidelines, otherwise you just lost any credibility, or that every claims leads to an offer at all, or that depending upon how you structure your claim will have an impact upon whether your case is settled pre fos, at fos, or at all.
neither of us has any information on claim upheld rates so we wont be able to decide the debate here

ppidisgrace

I have yet to see a complaint from a a CMC where the questionnaire has been included.

I suggest sir this is more a reflection on you , on the basis there are thousands of claims been submitted on fos questionaires , so there i guess that argument falls, although am I mistaken the MSE template is an alternative to the questionaire?

ppidisgrace

It also says before that you should have "Obtained relevant paperwork from the consumer where this is available – and carried out a preliminary check of the credit card statements or loan documentation, to attempt to establish whether a PPI policy exists."

where this is available, where this is not available, and the banks have the information, then do not deny people the rights to claim their money back, try being on the consumer side not the bank side for a change , lets not forget the banks ripped people off wholesale

ppidisgrace

For consumers who think they have a valid complaint, click on the link, print off the questionnaire, fill it in, take a copy and send it off. Fax it if you can (so you get an instant receipt) or post it and get proof of posting (free from the Post Office). Hang on to the receipt/proof of posting.

Allow to "simmer" for nine weeks (including a week to allow for the post).

If you do not get a response by then, or get a "final response" that is not to your satisfaction before then go to FOS. Even allowing for the increase in the price of postage next week, this will cost you just £1.00

and if you get a rejection , and end up with nothing, what then, search on the forum for an egghead who says there you go you were not entitled. i think people when it comes to making an important financial claim for the first time against people who are trained to professionally reject these claims, then it is not a surprise that people need help, want help, and will take this help from someone with responsability for the outcome, offer them representation and not go awol in the middle of the night on a forum when the going gets tough.
or you get a rejection letter, saying to people making a winning claim is easy simply isnt true, otherwise why would there be 11,000+ threads about it

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

and if you get a rejection , and end up with nothing, what then, search on the forum for an egghead who says there you go you were not entitled. i think people when it comes to making an important financial claim for the first time against people who are trained to professionally reject these claims, then it is not a surprise that people need help, want help, and will take this help from someone with responsability for the outcome, offer them representation and not go awol in the middle of the night on a forum when the going gets tough.
or you get a rejection letter, saying to people making a winning claim is easy simply isnt true, otherwise why would there be 11,000+ threads about it

Again you breach Client Specific Rule 12 of the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2007. You know you cannot do any better and you know it is unlawful to suggest you can yet you keep telling your lies.

JoJo44_2

I too have a Vanquis credit card. I have never agreed to their Optional Repayment Plan....I am passing my complaint to the financial ombudsman. This company deliberately mislead customers.

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

I suggest sir this is more a reflection on you , on the basis there are thousands of claims been submitted on fos questionaires

I do not see how a CMC not completing the FOS questionnaire is a reflection on me - I have no control over their actions.

2006.

ppidisgrace wrote: »

It also says before that you should have "Obtained relevant paperwork from the consumer where this is available – and carried out a preliminary check of the credit card statements or loan documentation, to attempt to establish whether a PPI policy exists."

where this is available, where this is not available, and the banks have the information, then do not deny people the rights to claim their money back, try being on the consumer side not the bank side for a change , lets not forget the banks ripped people off wholesale

But Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 says

"Fraud by false representation(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)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."

So don't bang out standard letters making allegations that are not true.

I do not work for a bank. I work with small IFAs and mortgage brokers.

They pay me for my time. They pay me well because they value my expertise. I spend a lot of time helping them to avoid complaints and I also help when they receive complaints. Generally they are conscientious and they do the best for their clients. Like the rest of us, they occasionally make mistakes and from time to time I uphold a complaint.

But I get annoyed when ambulance chasers accuse them of selling non-existent policies.

I get annoyed when they are accused of pressurising somebody to buy a non-existent policy.

I get annoyed when they are accused of not complying with rules that did not exist when they sold the policy.

I get annoyed when they are accused of failing to take account of the fact that somebody had the benefit of public service sickness benefits when in fact they were a charity worker.

Put simply, I get annoyed when somebody tries to defraud them.

But if you look at the "Lifestyle Claims" thread, you will see that I get annoyed when consumers a defrauded too.

You might not like what I say, but I generally have valid grounds to say it.

davidh025c

ppidisgrace wrote: »

what do you base that on? easy for who? rather than generalise and make comments without foundation, could you back them up please

Easy for anyone, simply following the advice on here I have successfully claimed mis-sold PPI for myself, my sister, my brother, wife and 3 freinds. All bar 1 of them in the Armed Forces so PPI was just not necessary. In each case all that was required was a FOS questionairre, covering letter and proof of HM Forces service (-1 for 1 person). All had LEGITIMATE reasons for PPI mis-sell. And when you have legitimate reasons for mis-sell it is VERY easy.

So if you can easily do it yourself, why pay 000's if not 0000's in paying a CMC to be nothing more than a postal service? :eek: