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

ppidisgrace

Alpine_Star wrote: »

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

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

i repeat this is compliant as it is a fact and does not infringe the regulation, read what I have wrote carefully, by all means seek request from the ministry of justice or a higher authority if you need this confirmed, ok?

ppidisgrace

magpiecottage wrote: »

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.

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".

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

i repeat this is compliant as it is a fact and does not infringe the regulation, read what I have wrote carefully, by all means seek help from the ministry of justice or a higher authority if you need this confirmed, ok?

ppidisgrace

guess the guys will reply money morning when they get back into work

oscar52

I'd be quite happy to respond but you keep spouting the same thing - that a claims company is better than doing it yourself even though you will end up with less money.

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

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

i repeat this is compliant as it is a fact and does not infringe the regulation, read what I have wrote carefully, by all means seek help from the ministry of justice or a higher authority if you need this confirmed, ok?

I have once more checked the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2007 which is still available on the website of your regulator the Ministry of Justice.

Client Specific Rule 12, on page 8, still says "Where a claim is one that 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 services of the business".

I can think of no conceivable reason why your regulator would tell you something which is so clearly at odds with its published rule. So I think it is therefore beyond all reasonable doubt that what you say is untrue.

So you are a PROVEN LIAR, ppidisgrace, because I have just proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, that your claim that you can ignore this rule is a lie.

But it shows up another lie too - that you are professional. I have shown you to be a liar and your only "defence" is to repeat the lie that I have irrefutably exposed.

Repeating a lie does NOT stop it being a lie. It merely reinforces the conclusion that the person repeating it is a liar.

You are not a professional, you are a bounty hunter seeking reward where you can find it - whether or not it the source is legitimate.

My job is to seek the truth and in your case I have found and demonstrated it to be what I think many others suspected. You are a liar.

dunstonh wrote: »

So, you think it isnt fraud when someone puts in a complaint about how they were sold PPI and how they remember what was said and what was done wrong. Yet they dont even have PPI and that conversation never happened?

ppidisgrace wrote: »

No I Dont

Condemned by your own words. Unfortunately my power ends with exposing the truth but I know where I think you should be - and it does not involve passing Go or collecting £200.

~Brock~

So encouraging fraud is acceptable then is it?

....more like cmcdisgrace as far as I can see.

Anyone that is actually in charge of any of the CMC's reading the drivel that comes out of this guys mouth must be pretty annoyed that one of their own illiterate monkeys is single handedly confirming all the arguments that are currently being used to turn the tide of opinion against this sham of an industry.

Trouble is, our friend ppidisgrace is clearly too thick to realise :rotfl:

magpiecottage

~Brock~ wrote: »

So encouraging fraud is acceptable then is it?

Next he'll come up with some !!!! and bull story that somebody at the Serious Fraud Office has told him it is not fraud.

~Brock~ wrote: »

Trouble is, our friend ppidisgrace is clearly too thick to realise

He is no friend of the honest consumer but you have got 50% which is all some clients of CMCs end up with.

But you are right - ppidisgrace is the 21st century equivalent of the quack doctors who offered cures that did not work and potentially left their customers worse off than they were.

ppidisgrace

magpiecottage wrote: »

I have once more checked the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2007 which is still available on the website of your regulator the Ministry of Justice.

Client Specific Rule 12, on page 8, still says "Where a claim is one that 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 services of the business".

I can think of no conceivable reason why your regulator would tell you something which is so clearly at odds with its published rule. So I think it is therefore beyond all reasonable doubt that what you say is untrue.

So you are a PROVEN LIAR, ppidisgrace, because I have just proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, that your claim that you can ignore this rule is a lie.

But it shows up another lie too - that you are professional. I have shown you to be a liar and your only "defence" is to repeat the lie that I have irrefutably exposed.

Repeating a lie does NOT stop it being a lie. It merely reinforces the conclusion that the person repeating it is a liar.

You are not a professional, you are a bounty hunter seeking reward where you can find it - whether or not it the source is legitimate.

My job is to seek the truth and in your case I have found and demonstrated it to be what I think many others suspected. You are a liar.



Condemned by your own words. Unfortunately my power ends with exposing the truth but I know where I think you should be - and it does not involve passing Go or collecting £200.

the information i give to you cannot breach the regulation as it is factually correct

and yes i said that with all the confusion over ppi, boxes being auto ticked , conversations relating to financial products over 6 years, whats the stat you guys using 1in5 fraud, id say 80% of people being accurate is a pretty good figure bearing in mind the conduct of the banks during this mass rip off scandal

ppidisgrace

magpiecottage wrote: »

Next he'll come up with some !!!! and bull story that somebody at the Serious Fraud Office has told him it is not fraud.



He is no friend of the honest consumer but you have got 50% which is all some clients of CMCs end up with.

But you are right - ppidisgrace is the 21st century equivalent of the quack doctors who offered cures that did not work and potentially left their customers worse off than they were.

there you go scare mongering again with your 50% figure , but still refuse to answer whether you would support the banks making changes to the way they process claims that could reduce the cost to those who decide they wish to have representation by 25-33%

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

the information i give to you cannot breach the regulation as it is factually correct

You say black IS white.

I show it is not in black AND white

You are once more a PROVEN LIAR ppidisgrace

ppidisgrace wrote: »

there you go scare mongering again with your 50% figure

I have seen claim agreements where that is the case and FOS has reported cases where the fee is actually more than 100% of any payment received, in some cases even charging on the basis of supposed future premiums on the PPI - which had never been lost in the first place.

but still refuse to answer whether you would support the banks making changes to the way they process claims that could reduce the cost to those who decide they wish to have representation by 25-33%

And what an earth would be the point in endorsing the promises of a PROVEN LIAR who has advocated committing offences under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006?