PPI - Future Mortgages 2004-2007 - Their word v mine?

Marty_Hopkirk

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%?

Yes Iam, that more than reconpenses them for an hours work (max) and a cost of a stamp.

Marty...

Marty_Hopkirk

Nasqueron wrote: »

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)?

Agreed, an upfront hourly rate would be the best and most transparent method of charging, I wonder why they don' employ this method, hmm...

Marty...

Marty_Hopkirk

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Which part of 'none of them want anything to do with this site' did you not understand.

I wonder why? Nothing stopping you recomending them though, feel free to do so.

Marty...

addedvaluebob

magpiecottage wrote: »

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.

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.

I know that the financial advice industry still fails to meet regulatory requirements and this idea of holding them up as some form of paragon of fairness is far from the truth.

As far as 'fraudulent friends' are concerned didn't you post before that you know IFAs who are running CMC operations.

In answer to the suitability report making the charges clear to customers let's have look at some facts from FCA thematic reviews last year

TR14/21 Retail investment advice: Adviser charging and services

Did not clearly disclose what service a client would receive in return for the ongoing fee 9%
Did not disclose that the client could cancel the ongoing service, or how they would go about doing so 6%

Disclosure of adviser charges

Generic disclosure of adviser charges

Did not provide in writing 3%
Did not provide in good time before making a personal recommendation 3%
(Where using a % basis) did not provide initial charge in cash terms 15%
(Where using a % basis) did not provide ongoing charge in cash terms 18%
(Where using an hourly rate) did not clarify whether rate was actual or indicative 5%
(Where using an hourly indicative rate) did not clarify the basis on which the rate would vary 31%
(Where using an hourly rate) did not clarify approximate number of hours each service was likely to require 57%

Specific disclosure of total adviser charges
Did not provide in a durable medium or through a website 5%
(Where payable over a period) did not provide the total charge 5%
Did not provide initial charge in cash terms 9%
Did not provide ongoing charge in cash terms 35%

and in regard to the suitability of the advice provided lets have a look at another thematic review from last year concerned with pension transfer advice

Suitability of advice with regard to ETV Pensions from the FCA review into 2926 transfers

The overall results of the review are set out in the tables below.
Suitability finding across review population

Suitable 52%
Unsuitable 34%
Unclear 14%
Grand Total 2926 100%

Disclosure finding across review population ( was the paperwork correct)

Acceptable 21%
Unacceptable 74%
Uncertain 5%
Grand Total 2926 100%

Marty_Hopkirk

addedvaluebob wrote: »

I know that the financial advice industry still fails to meet regulatory requirements and this idea of holding them up as some form of paragon of fairness is far from the truth.

As far as 'fraudulent friends' are concerned didn't you post before that you know IFAs who are running CMC operations.

In answer to the suitability report making the charges clear to customers let's have look at some facts from FCA thematic reviews last year

TR14/21 Retail investment advice: Adviser charging and services

Did not clearly disclose what service a client would receive in return for the ongoing fee 9%
Did not disclose that the client could cancel the ongoing service, or how they would go about doing so 6%

Disclosure of adviser charges

Generic disclosure of adviser charges

Did not provide in writing 3%
Did not provide in good time before making a personal recommendation 3%
(Where using a % basis) did not provide initial charge in cash terms 15%
(Where using a % basis) did not provide ongoing charge in cash terms 18%
(Where using an hourly rate) did not clarify whether rate was actual or indicative 5%
(Where using an hourly indicative rate) did not clarify the basis on which the rate would vary 31%
(Where using an hourly rate) did not clarify approximate number of hours each service was likely to require 57%

Specific disclosure of total adviser charges
Did not provide in a durable medium or through a website 5%
(Where payable over a period) did not provide the total charge 5%
Did not provide initial charge in cash terms 9%
Did not provide ongoing charge in cash terms 35%

and in regard to the suitability of the advice provided lets have a look at another thematic review from last year concerned with pension transfer advice

Suitability of advice with regard to ETV Pensions from the FCA review into 2926 transfers

The overall results of the review are set out in the tables below.
Suitability finding across review population

Suitable 52%
Unsuitable 34%
Unclear 14%
Grand Total 2926 100%

Disclosure finding across review population ( was the paperwork correct)

Acceptable 21%
Unacceptable 74%
Uncertain 5%
Grand Total 2926 100%

I would say that is QED and proves financial institutions are regulated, where as CMCs are not and run rampant and clearly not regulated and plainly have unfair T&Cs and don't advertise correctly.

Marty...

addedvaluebob

What a fine example of old english gibberish from someone who apparently has no understanding or the ability to read. These figures demonstrate that unlike magpiecottage's assertion regarding paperwork and what financial advisers have to do, the FCA have found time and again that they fail to meet the required standard.

CMC's are regulated and if you can prove unfair T & Cs then report the company to the Ministry of Justice (who regulated the claims management companies) as clearly you seem to be unaware of their existence

Marty_Hopkirk

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/may/04/hidden-costs-free-ppi

@addedvaluebob please read.

Marty...

addedvaluebob

Marty_Hopkirk wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/may/04/hidden-costs-free-ppi

@addedvaluebob please read.

Marty...

Yeah

I read it three years ago when it first came out your point is what? Is this supposed to correct the fact that you posted on a topic of which you have no understanding?

Marty_Hopkirk

"a) The Company will charge the Client 35% + VAT of the total amount awarded to the Client in full and final settlement of the claim. For example, for a payout of £1,000.00, the Company would charge a success fee of £350 + VAT.
b) If no award is made, the Client will not pay the Company anything, except in certain circumstances, see clause 5 below on “Cancelling this Agreement”.
c) VAT will be charged on all of the Company’s fees at the standard current rate.
d) A fee of £10 will be payable by the Client in the event that a Data Subject Access Request is made.
e) The Company may charge interest and charges if you fail to settle your balance within 14 days of receipt of payment"

From an abitary Google.Not only does this company charge 35% plus VAT, they even charge you £10 for SAR.

----

• Not to pursue the claim during the term of the Contract personally and not to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service;
• Not to contact or correspond or communicate with the Third Party without the consent of the Company, as this may prejudice any ongoing negotiations

This bunch don't want you talking anybody else. Are they fair? you decide.



Marty...

Insider101

Marty_Hopkirk wrote: »

• Not to pursue the claim during the term of the Contract personally and not to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service;
• Not to contact or correspond or communicate with the Third Party without the consent of the Company, as this mayexpose the fact that our complaint letter is full of made up fairy stories

Marty...

Fixed for you :laugh::laugh::laugh: