We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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!
PPI - Future Mortgages 2004-2007 - Their word v mine?
Options
Comments
-
No CMC is honest as all charge a huge fee for jotting down what the client tells them, adding some generic reasons on top (even when they don't apply) and then posting the letter - nothing they do justifies anything more than a few hours minimum wage admin work, certainly not 25-40% of any refund.
CMCs are as bad at miss-selling as those fake DVLA/Passport sites, charging a fee for something you can do yourself direct at no cost.
p.s. Still waiting for you to name the CMCs that you recommend that charge an extremely low fee, send security vetted, qualified staff around to your house to go over your paperwork (rather than just call centre staff taking your details over the phone), construct a robust and honest complaint with no contradictions and no claims they can't back up AND tell you up front you can do it for free yourself with equal chance of success
Well said!
The reason @addedvaluebob is struggling to name a CMC that meets that critera is, there are none!
Marty...0 -
You are clearly unaware of the disclosure requirements in the FCA handbook. They are all required to provide details in a durable medium at outset.addedvaluebob wrote: »How is this hypocrisy? My point was that you don't start any business transaction such as a phone call with a complete run down of T & C's and fees. Your IFA's do not explain their fee structure until they have written to the client or had a face to face meeting
The rules also require the information to be "clear, fair and not misleading". Simply burying it somewhere in the T&Cs will not be sufficient to persuade FOS that a complaint should be rejected.
It is an inconvenient truth for you and your friends the CMCs but, for them meet that standard they would have to say:
"What we will do is complete the form at http://www.fos.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi/PPI-consumer-questionnaire.doc or our customised version of it and a contract saying we can have anything up to half of any redress to which you are entitled. We will get you to to find out all of the information for us to fill in because it is not in the public domain. Once you have signed it and gone down to the post box and sent it to us, we will send it to the company concerned.
Alternatively, instead of filling in our form and returning to us, you can fill in the same from from the Financial Ombudsman Service, put it in envelope addressed to your lender instead of us and put it into the same post box. We are required to ensure that we only take on customers who are too lazy and/or too stupid to actually write the address of their lender on an envelope and put a stamp on it.".
If you read my post, you will see that they make unsolicited calls to my TPS regulated number. Not once have they ever suggested to me that it is something I can do for myself.Who says they are, do you have any evidence that companies are doing this0 -
No CMC is honest as all charge a huge fee for jotting down what the client tells them, adding some generic reasons on top (even when they don't apply) and then posting the letter - nothing they do justifies anything more than a few hours minimum wage admin work, certainly not 25-40% of any refund.
CMCs are as bad at miss-selling as those fake DVLA/Passport sites, charging a fee for something you can do yourself direct at no cost.
p.s. Still waiting for you to name the CMCs that you recommend that charge an extremely low fee, send security vetted, qualified staff around to your house to go over your paperwork (rather than just call centre staff taking your details over the phone), construct a robust and honest complaint with no contradictions and no claims they can't back up AND tell you up front you can do it for free yourself with equal chance of success
The companies that I know have a charging structure with a maximum of 15% of any reclaim and are staffed by financial services professionals with many years of experience, all of them specialise in financial services mis-selling getting many referrals from financial advisers who do not want to take their own time in pursuing complaints. I believe magpiecottage posted that they know of two financial advisers who also run claims companies.
As posted before, none of them want anything to do with this site0 -
addedvaluebob wrote: »The companies that I know have a charging structure with a maximum of 15% of any reclaim and are staffed by financial services professionals with many years of experience, all of them specialise in financial services mis-selling getting many referrals from financial advisers who do not want to take their own time in pursuing complaints. I believe magpiecottage posted that they know of two financial advisers who also run claims companies.
As posted before, none of them want anything to do with this site
OK name them, please.
Marty...
PS: 15% is about 12% more than the work that CMCs undertake.0 -
addedvaluebob wrote: »The companies that I know have a charging structure with a maximum of 15% of any reclaim and are staffed by financial services professionals with many years of experience, all of them specialise in financial services mis-selling getting many referrals from financial advisers who do not want to take their own time in pursuing complaints. I believe magpiecottage posted that they know of two financial advisers who also run claims companies.
As posted before, none of them want anything to do with this site
Ah this is a new excuse, previously your excuse was that MSE "doesn't allow you to name CMCs" even though there is a topic all about discussing them.
I struggle to understand how a business could want to NOT get advertising and NOT get customers, can you explain, especially given that MSE, and Martin especially, has been pushing people to reclaim PPI for years?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 -
magpiecottage wrote: »You are clearly unaware of the disclosure requirements in the FCA handbook. They are all required to provide details in a durable medium at outset.
The rules also require the information to be "clear, fair and not misleading". Simply burying it somewhere in the T&Cs will not be sufficient to persuade FOS that a complaint should be rejected.
It is an inconvenient truth for you and your friends the CMCs
I am completely aware of the FCA requirements and also the numerous instances of poor practice from the last 10 years including pension switching and investment churning without justification. Also identified from the thematic reviews was the lack of disclosure of fees and charges.
Didn't you also post elsewhere that two of the companies you work for and defend against complaints from the general public operate as CMC's, as well as FOS clearly stating that they receive as many complaints about financial advice from other financial advisers as they do from CMC's. On that basis financial advisers (the same one's who mis-sold pension and investment switching) should be in the same category as CMC's.
Do these financial advisers also state 'you can look for life cover online using various comparison sites and avoid paying my fees' before mugging off the general public with hourly fees for completing a template report that regurgitates everything the customer has told them for £200 per hour0 -
So you know, but choose to ignore, the fact that unlike your friends the CMCs, there is no need for a financial adviser to say you can get it free.addedvaluebob wrote: »I am completely aware of the FCA requirements
You know, but choose to ignore, the fact that they are legally obliged to produce a suitability report for any investment recommendation.
You know, but choose to ignore the fact that most financial advice relates to investments not life cover.
You know, but choose to ignore that most financial advisers charge less than the figure quoted.
You know, but choose to ignore the fact that the adviser's remuneration is made very clear in the illustration (not simply buried in small print) before an application is made).
You know, but choose to ignore these inconvenient truths - just as your fraudulent friends the CMCs know, but choose to ignore their regulatory obligation to make potential customers aware that they can pursue the complaint themselves very easily and free of charge.0 -
Marty_Hopkirk wrote: »OK name them, please.
Marty...
PS: 15% is about 12% more than the work that CMCs undertake.
Which part of 'none of them want anything to do with this site' did you not understand.
Are you suggesting they should charge 3%?0 -
I understand why they would not want to draw their victims' attention to the fact that they can complain direct with no extra effort on their part and at least as good a chance of success - and then keep all of any redress.addedvaluebob wrote: »Which part of 'none of them want anything to do with this site' did you not understand.0 -
addedvaluebob wrote: »Which part of 'none of them want anything to do with this site' did you not understand.
Are you suggesting they should charge 3%?
An hourly fee based on work done, set out in advance so the client knows what the total cost is likely to be, rather than a % of refund for little to no work (or do your CMCs actually send people round to look at the documentation rather than just record it over the phone)?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
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards