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

ppidisgrace

dont you mean people have won back thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands , and millions of pounds of their money that they had been ripped off for by the banks as a result of seeing a company take a commercial risk ( bearing in mind the judicial review)and run an advert that brought to the attention of someone who had a right to claim, hadnt claimed and was prompted to claim by seeing the advert, and the result was that they won and the banks lost!

misschicken

Don't you also mean people have won back thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of pounds of their money that they had been ripped off for by the banks as a result of just putting 'PPI' into Google and finding information on this website and others on how to do so for free and keeping all the money refunded to them?

[Deleted User]

misschicken wrote: »

Don't you also mean people have won back thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of pounds of their money that they had been ripped off for by the banks as a result of just putting 'PPI' into Google and finding information on this website and others on how to do so for free and keeping all the money refunded to them?

Don't feed the troll, misschicken;)

ppidisgrace

misschicken wrote: »

Don't you also mean people have won back thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of pounds of their money that they had been ripped off for by the banks as a result of just putting 'PPI' into Google and finding information on this website and others on how to do so for free and keeping all the money refunded to them?

correct and that is fantastic

and dont you also think its fantastic for those i also described above , that sought help, wanted representation and received redress through this channel

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

dont you also think its fantastic for those i also described above , that sought help, wanted representation and received redress through this channel

But they only think they want representation because you keep telling them they do which, as I keep reminding you, is in breach of Client Specific Rule 12 on page eight of the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2007, issued by your regulator, the Ministry of Justice.

ppidisgrace

under the regulations the client is advised in pre contract information prior to signing up that there is nothing to stop them making a claim themselves, and also advise all banks offer a free complaints service and that you have the power to lodge a complaint on your behalf, and also 14 day cooling off period

and yes it is acceptable to present that representation can remove the burden, and representation can handle the complaint on a persons behalf help in notoriously time consuming and laborious process, and banks may try and offer a payment which doesnt fully justify the full amount a person may be entitled to and set out to claim the full amount the person deserve's

i hope that helps you understand things better

how many industrys have to do that!

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

under the regulations the client is advised in pre contract information prior to signing up that there is nothing to stop them making a claim themselves, and also advise all banks offer a free complaints service and that you have the power to lodge a complaint on your behalf

That is general rule 1e)

and also 14 day cooling off period

That is client specific rule 15

and yes it is acceptable to present that representation can remove the burden, and representation can handle the complaint on a persons behalf help in notoriously time consuming and laborious process

Oh it is such an effort filling in this form, taking a copy putting it in an envelope, putting a stamp on it and shoving it in the post.

and banks may try and offer a payment which doesnt fully justify the full amount a person may be entitled to and set out to claim the full amount the person deserve's

Oh dear, you are suggesting that you can get a better result for them.

You have overlooked Client Specific Rule 12, which says "Where a claim falls within the province of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Housing Ombudsman Service or any other recognised dispute resolution procedure the business must not suggest that a claimant will have a more favourable outcome if he uses the outcome of the business."

What part of "must not" do you find it difficult to understand.

how many industrys have to do that!

How many industries choose which of their regulator's rules they will obey and which they won't?

ppidisgrace

ok ive tried to be patient and explain things to you, but your again fixed in a position where you cant hear anything

if you need further educating, speak to the MoJ and they will confim to you that it is compliant as it is a fact to say the banks may try and offer a payment which doesnt fully justify the full amount a person may be entitled to and set out to claim the full amount the person deserve's

you learn something new everyday hey boyo

Alpine_Star

ppidisgrace wrote: »

if you need further educating, speak to the MoJ and they will confim to you that it is compliant as it is a fact to say the banks may try and offer a payment which doesnt fully justify the full amount a person may be entitled to and set out to claim the full amount the person deserve's

you learn something new everyday hey boyo

Are you serious?

This is complete garbage.

The MOJ recently published a reminder to CMCs that:

''Whether this is the case or not, you are reminded that you may not suggest that a claimant will have a more favourable outcome if he/she uses your service.''

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/claims-regulation/business-ppi-factsheet1190811.pdf

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

ok ive tried to be patient and explain things to you, but your again fixed in a position where you cant hear anything

The position is fixed by your regulator, the Ministry of Justice in Client Specific Rule 12 on page eight of the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2007.

I am getting bored of putting this in but keep doing so in the rather forlorn hope that you might actually bother to read it.

if you need further educating

I seek the help of somebody who has greater knowledge than I do either by speaking to them or reading what they have written. In this case I read the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2007 which is published by the Ministry of Justice. It is very clear in what it says in Client Specific Rule 12 on page 8.

It is also quite capable of changing those rules if it wants to say something different but has not done so. The only logical reason for that is that this accurately reflects its stance on the matter.

I also try to refrain from criticising those who cannot properly control the use of the apostrophe but I do think anybody promoting themselves as a quasi-legal expert rather undermines their boast if they do not realise there is one in "doesn't" but thinks there is in "deserves".