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

roonaldo

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

you love bank bashing dont you. you know PPI is not illegal or wrong to have, as long as its sold correctly, its suitable and customer eligible for it, there's nought wrong.

ppidisgrace

davidh025c wrote: »

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:

it may have worked for your claim but does not mean it will work for all or anyones, a lot of claims get rejected, you were one of the lucky ones , well done

ppidisgrace

roonaldo wrote: »

you love bank bashing dont you. you know PPI is not illegal or wrong to have, as long as its sold correctly, its suitable and customer eligible for it, there's nought wrong.

you might actually fine many were fined, and banned from selling, an overpriced product, attached onto loans, added onto credit cards, that people couldnt claim on, the bank payout rates were very low, was a license to print money and ripping money out of peoples pockets who could not afford it, sure correctly priced appropriate protection is good, but the products these lenders mass mis sold is a long way from that

ppidisgrace

JoJo44 wrote: »

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.

MSE should make it clear the template isnt for vanquis claims , and others

[Deleted User]

ppidisgrace wrote: »

you were one of the lucky ones ,

Yeah, lucky he didn't use a claim firm.

ppidisgrace

magpiecottage wrote: »

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.

you obviously have not seen evidence of claims made by banks that that following intervention the claim value substantially increases far in excess of costs charged?

gone quiet?

ppidisgrace

magpiecottage wrote: »

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.

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.

if it wasnt for claims, you wouldnt have a job, however if it wasnt for dodgy ifa's you also wouldnt have a job, good luck training the ifas how to defend claims, is part of that coming on here telling them the process is easy, i imagine you have lost quite of claims to people with representation that you too find fustrating, your funded by the industry that ripped all the people off, and still in bed with them, no different to others with an agenda, and that agenda is the same as the banks - find reasons to reject claims where you can....buyer beware, these ifas are as slipy as they come and all should come with a health warning

[Deleted User]

ppidisgrace wrote: »

you obviously have not seen evidence of claims made by banks that that following intervention the claim value substantially increases far in excess of costs charged?

Even if CMCs could increase (or even affect in any way) what the Banks offer in redress, any extra would be more than swallowed by the exorbitant fees charged.

I_luv_cats

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Even if CMCs could increase (or even affect in any way) what the Banks offer in redress, any extra would be more than swallowed by the exorbitant fees charged.

Unless you were the person that was duped in to coughing up £980 in advance fees and only getting £333 back from their ppi bank claim!! (after a fuss the difference was refunded but there are other cases who are still worse off!!!!)

[Deleted User]

I_luv_cats wrote: »

Unless you were the person that was duped in to coughing up £980 in advance fees

Advance fees are by far the worst kind of scam, I agree.