MSE News: Ombudsman recruits extra staff to beat PPI logjam

[Deleted User]

~Brock~ wrote: »

...I would prefer to see this country actually manufacturing stuff and therefore creating long term sustainable jobs for a change instead of seeing menial jobs being created for people to run round in circles trying to claim off each other.

Unfortunately, I think that particular (manufacturing) boat has long since sailed.:(

roonaldo

di3004 wrote: »

I understand the new Recruitment Agency rules came into affect from 01 October 2011, once worked for 12 or 13 weeks - an agency worker should receive the same pay as permanent staff.

I take it this will stand for the FOS as well??

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Understandingyourworkstatus/Agencyworkersandemploymentagencies/DG_198913

nope, the fos contractors are self-employed and have to work to higher standards than the perm staff. I had to setup a Ltd company to work as a contractor. so nil rights.

oldvicar

roonaldo wrote: »

nope, the fos contractors are self-employed and have to work to higher standards than the perm staff. I had to setup a Ltd company to work as a contractor. so nil rights.

Isn't that just ridiculous. Paying £500 per day rather than half that (or less) gets you off the employment legislation hooks. Even dafter when it is typically the public sector that can afford such indulgences, and profit seeking enterprises are the ones which suffer from the consequences of the legislation and are deterred from employing people.

magpiecottage

oldvicar wrote: »

Isn't that just ridiculous. Paying £500 per day rather than half that (or less) gets you off the employment legislation hooks.

The contractors do get less than half that.

But FOS is not public sector - it is Financial Ombudsman Service Limited (look it up on the Companies House website) and funded by charging hard pressed advisers £500 (about to go up to £850) win, lose or even to be told they have no case to answer.

But then the contractor gets an extra payment depending on the number of cases they "close" so "no case to answer" is easy money for them.

Berryhillrunner

Isn't the staffing problem largely due to the poor regulation of CMC's.

They have nothing to loose i.e. no cost to them, by referring everything to the Ombudsman.

Their regulation by the Ministry of Justice is pitiful particularly around the HUGE charges they are allowed to levy against successful claims.

dunstonh

oldvicar wrote: »

Amazing to think that one man :money:has been the protagonist in the creation of this PPI reclaiming industry.

The admin costs alone look to be over £1billion :eek:, but at least its creating thousands of temporary jobs. :j

It started before Martin had even mentioned it.

Claims companies are a big problem. I dont know if you noticed the other thread where it was reported on the same day that the banks have persuaded the MoJ to investigate claims companies. This is because between 30% and 50% of complaints are fraudulent and nearly all come via claims companies. Fraudulent as in not having PPI or not buying it via the bank.

Sadly, this site posted the media article on the FOS recruitment but didnt mention once that the MoJ is investigating claims companies or the volume of fraudulent complaints. You could say that news that the banks are being ripped off by consumers committing fraud is not really what MSE wants. However, we see posts every day from people who have been ripped off by claims companies who use worse sales tactics than the banks. Yet MSE ignores it.

I have seen some of these complaints company letters. A number of them use the same letter for every complaint made. This makes a mockery of the system as you have people in different parts of the country, using the same claims company and same template letter complaining about different firms yet the letter states the very same things were said or not said. The perfect recollection in the letter of events happens to be identical with all complaints via that claims company.

Whilst many are going to have no sympathy with the banks, it is the small local companies who have not been behind this issue that are also getting complaints by claims companies. I have mentioned before a young mortgage adviser only quite new to the job who suffered a complaint via a claims company with a template letter telling a whole load of rubbish. His factfind was able to show most of it was rubbish. However, the key thing was that he hadnt recommended or sold any PPI. Yet this letter said the person recalled what was said and all the things he didnt say that he should have. Clearly fraudulent. It was obviously rejected. The worst part was that the claims company still took it to the FOS even though it was pointed out there was no PPI. The mortgage adviser got hit with a £500 charge. The claims company didnt get charged a thing. He was only earning around £1500pm as a new adviser, it really hit his confidence as well as his pocket. I could see the tears almost welling up.

roonaldo

Dunstonh FOS do or should of waived the £500 fee if they get bogus/frivilous complaints, ie no PPI sold. I see the letters all the time at the moment where they say no fee charged. Perhaps its needs to be requested to be waived, im not sure.

dunstonh

roonaldo wrote: »

Dunstonh FOS do or should of waived the £500 fee if they get bogus/frivilous complaints, ie no PPI sold. I see the letters all the time at the moment where they say no fee charged. Perhaps its needs to be requested to be waived, im not sure.

He didnt get it waived. FOS make a point of saying they waive very few. Strange when you consider what the banks have said over the last few days. You would expect any complaint from someone without the product they are complaining about to not be charged the FOS fee.

magpiecottage

di3004 wrote: »

I understand the new Recruitment Agency rules came into affect from 01 October 2011, once worked for 12 or 13 weeks - an agency worker should receive the same pay as permanent staff.

I take it this will stand for the FOS as well??

No because they are not agency workers, they each work for their own separate limited liability company.