MSE News: MSE and Which? launch 'reclaim for free' PPI campaign

ppidisgrace

i do think the banks are capable or organizing themselves when it comes to finding ways to not pay back billions

dunstonh

i believe it was the number of claims being brought predominately by cmc's that led the banks to take the decision to try and challenge at Judicial review

And you cant blame them considering upto half the complaints CMCs generate are fraudulent.

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

i believe it was the number of claims being brought predominately by cmc's that led the banks to take the decision to try and challenge at Judicial review

You flatter yourself. It was retrospective regulation by the FSA that was challenged, NOT the actions of CMCs.

ppidisgrace

dunstonh wrote: »

And you cant blame them considering upto half the complaints CMCs generate are fraudulent.

claims without ppi didnt come into consideration at the judicial review, in the banks wildest dreams they wish every claim they receive didnt have ppi

ppidisgrace

magpiecottage wrote: »

You flatter yourself. It was retrospective regulation by the FSA that was challenged, NOT the actions of CMCs.

you misunderstand what I have written, i believe the banks took the decision to go to the judicial review as a result of the number of claims being brought to them which 80% of which were done so by cmcs

the fsa was not advertising for new claims i do not recall

I_luv_cats

I said in post #86 If only the information was there in black n white (a) upfront fees n charges and (b) % of your successful claim and VAT deductions (c) that you could do it yourself (well perhaps c is asking too much)

Personally I would use the FREE resources available BUT as long as potential clients have the information clearly set out to enable them to make an informed choice whether to go solo or via a CMC.

Many CMC's are fuelling aggressive marketing which some of it is not allowed!

I am getting up to 20 emails a day!!! (I have no ppi claim)

hadtic

quite sad to see all the bad publicity on this site because at the end of the day the customer just becomes more confused. Any company that gains from the public in any way including CMCs and affiliate link websites should not be involved in a slagging match but should be giving honest opinions, something that is not happening at the moment. Having worked in both financial services and claims i can speak from both sides of the fence and both industries need sorted by the regulators and by nobody else. Is getting a client £167,000 cpmpensation or £112,000 compensation for being mis sold their pension and charging 15% sound unfair or something the client could do by themselves i think not. 15% for PPI Claims is not overcharging the client for the service and there is more and more out there charging this. I am not on here to promote any website, company or anything else but everone should stay out of the issue other than the regulators of both industries then the public would not be so confused.

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

you misunderstand what I have written, i believe the banks took the decision to go to the judicial review as a result of the number of claims being brought to them which 80% of which were done so by cmcs

the fsa was not advertising for new claims i do not recall

The FSA told them they had to operate on the basis of a retrospective standard. That was why the JR occurred.

The standard the banks wanted to apply was one which the courts have accepted.

ppidisgrace

magpiecottage wrote: »

The FSA told them they had to operate on the basis of a retrospective standard. That was why the JR occurred.

The standard the banks wanted to apply was one which the courts have accepted.

have you read the judicial review, if you had, you could not make a statement such as that if thats all you think the JR was just about that or why it occurred

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

Amen to that! I feel people are so vulnerable to the marketing whizz of PPI Claims Companies that will only add one problem onto another.:beer::money: