MSE News: 'I got £82,000 PPI back'

[Deleted User]

timmybear wrote: »

The way I see it, if he agreed to giving the claims company that % share then that's his bad luck. To get 'ripped off', one generally has to be taken advantage of without consent.

Well, while I'm not condoning the way he's conducted his financial affairs over the years, it has to be said that he probably thought his chances of success would improve if he agreed to let the Claims company act on his behalf. Note also that he first complained in October 2010, well before the Banks lost the court case.

[Deleted User]

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Consent to what? Consent to agree that a misleadingly described service is necessary and worth what is asked for it, perhaps?

Exactly.
A bit like PPI policies themselves!

timmybear

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Consent to what? Consent to agree that a misleadingly described service is necessary and worth what is asked for it, perhaps?

Oh, but now I hear you say "The Claims service achieved what they said they would try to achieve".

So the contract was based on the result not the effort, eh? Did anyone describe the effort that would be required to the client before they made the decision? Nah, not mandatory?

Say the claims handler was a lawyer on "no win no fee" - would a lawyer be able to do the same or would a lawyer's duty to disclose conflict of interest extend to describing how easy it was to DIY?

You got it in one. There are lots of things I could do for myself, but I don't. Like mowing my lawns. I pay some one to do it for me. I ask what is being offered, and fees are agreed. Only in the case of the bloke doing my lawns, he wasn't charging as much as I felt was appropriate for the work he does. That is to say, what he does for me is worth more to me than he thought was fair to charge. Point is, this bloke in the story, he probably only expected to recoop a small amount of money. So he agreed to the %fees. That was his choice. It's not the PPI companies fault that the banks agreed to cough up the alleged £82K, thus hiking up the amount the company was entitled to. And if limits are to be set on what PPI companies can take, then as a customer of Barclays myself, I think the claiment should have been limited as to what he was allowed to claim back.

I am not saying that I agree with the way that these PPI claim companies go about their business, ringing people up and making a nuisance of themseleves to anyone who isn't interested, but then I have no sympathy for anyone who goes into any situation without thinking it through.

I know I sound like a hard-faced female dog, but I had to learn the hard way. I left school in 1994 aged 16 without the first clue of how to live in the big wide world. I don't see why -having been forced to learn for myself- society is so forgiving of those who can't bother.

[Deleted User]

timmybear wrote: »

the alleged £82K,

It's a reported £82,000, not "alleged" at all. I wonder how Guy Anker (the News editor of this site) would respond to your calling his professionalism into question in such a manner?

timmybear

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

It's a reported £82,000, not "alleged" at all. I wonder how Guy Anker (the News editor of this site) would respond to your calling his professionalism into question in such a manner?

I have no idea. Ask him.

[Deleted User]

timmybear wrote: »

I have no idea. Ask him.

Naw, I think he probably has better things to do with his time than read this thread.
Like him, I'll go look for more profitable use of my time...

timmybear

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Naw, I think he probably has better things to do with his time than read this thread.
Like him, I'll go look for more profitable use of my time...

See! We can agree on some things! :T

oldvicar

If several posters are right, that much of the £82,000 is due to interest accumulating at 8%, then I hope that someone has mentioned to the poor guy that he will have an enormous tax bill to meet.

He may think he is debt free today, but the taxman could want half of what he is left with after paying the claims handling company.

thelawnet

I would never let myself get into this kind of situation, so I will admit I know almost nothing about PPI.

It all sounds rather odd though

'He says the insurance just appeared one day. He had no idea what it was for, or why he was charged.'

He's 46 and has had a Barclaycard since he was 18, what does 'one day' mean?

I don't see that it's more likely than not, on the balance of probabilities, that this charge just 'appeared'.

The article is rather oddly structured:

'Phil, 46, who is married with two teenage kids, first made a claim in July 2010 but was rejected by Barclaycard

Thankfully, unlike many people who get put off at that stage, Phil (pictured, right) continued. He went to the free independent Financial Ombudsman Service, which found in his favour in September last year.'

'After being rejected by Barclaycard, Phil then contacted a claims company to continue his claim. He had to pay the firm £25,000 in fees from his redress.'

So I take it that he didn't go the Ombudsman - the claims company did.

And it looks like he was on a contingency fee, of 30%. It would be helpful for readers to explain how this works. Some firms take a flat fee/the hour, this one charged a percentage. Perfectly standard, and not really a rip-off at all (the firm works for free if it loses, plus the charging structure creates an incentive for the claims company to claim more money for both), but rather than printing lurid scare stories about '£25,000 fees', it would make sense to educate people here about what 'no-win, no-fee' means..

brewerdave

This story means that the number of unwanted phone calls from claims "handlers" is surely going to increase. I've had at least 3 calls in the last 2 days on my home phone!!