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

ppidisgrace

magpiecottage wrote: »

You say black IS white.

I show it is not in black AND white

You are once more a PROVEN LIAR ppidisgrace



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.



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?

instead of the teen abuse, when i have presented a factual statement that does not breach moj regs rather than insult me, if you really dont know that this is compliant , give the moj a ring and have the argument with them, not me lol, you really are very hot under the collar about things and im sorry to say without personalizing things to you, but your actually incorrect, you've become so damning of me, with the amount of egg left on your face this might be qualifying for a forum name change lol

roonaldo

ppidisgrace wrote: »

instead of the teen abuse, when i have presented a factual statement that does not breach moj regs rather than insult me, if you really dont know that this is compliant , give the moj a ring and have the argument with them, not me lol, you really are very hot under the collar about things and im sorry to say without personalizing things to you, but your actually incorrect, you've become so damning of me, with the amount of egg left on your face this might be qualifying for a forum name change lol

behave, you have no idea.

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

instead of the teen abuse

I never made any such comment.

In my experience, most people understand the meaning of "must not" about ten years before they reach their teens, though.

i have presented a factual statement that does not breach moj regs

Although it is beyond all reasonable doubt that your regulator, the Ministry of Justice, fully expects you to comply with its rules, lets suppose, for a moment that the utterly unreasonable doubt you seek to sow in people's minds were true what would that prove?

Only that your regulator was utterly incompetent at ensuring you did not rip consumers off - where does that leave them?

If you go to a bank, IFA, mortgage broker or insurance intermediary and are missold, you can, if necessary go to FOS or, if they no longer exist, to the FSCS.

If you go to somebody else for consumer credit you can go to FOS provided they still exist.

If you go to a CMC and have grounds for complaint you are stuffed because their regulator makes up rules and tells the CMC to ignore them.

So your lie does not help you at all.



I have shown the evidence that you have lied

By doing that, I have shown that you are not even a particularly competent liar.

You have advocated fraud on this forum.

You argued that your regulator makes rules that you do not need to keep.

I cannot see why anybody in possession of these facts and their right mind would want you to represent them.

ppidisgrace

magpiecottage wrote: »

I never made any such comment.

In my experience, most people understand the meaning of "must not" about ten years before they reach their teens, though.



Although it is beyond all reasonable doubt that your regulator, the Ministry of Justice, fully expects you to comply with its rules, lets suppose, for a moment that the utterly unreasonable doubt you seek to sow in people's minds were true what would that prove?

Only that your regulator was utterly incompetent at ensuring you did not rip consumers off - where does that leave them?

If you go to a bank, IFA, mortgage broker or insurance intermediary and are missold, you can, if necessary go to FOS or, if they no longer exist, to the FSCS.

If you go to somebody else for consumer credit you can go to FOS provided they still exist.

If you go to a CMC and have grounds for complaint you are stuffed because their regulator makes up rules and tells the CMC to ignore them.

So your lie does not help you at all.



I have shown the evidence that you have lied

By doing that, I have shown that you are not even a particularly competent liar.

You have advocated fraud on this forum.

You argued that your regulator makes rules that you do not need to keep.

I cannot see why anybody in possession of these facts and their right mind would want you to represent them.

no what you are implying is that despite having evidence to show that offers have been increased by far in excess of client fee, and a person of free will stating this as a fact, that by stating the truth is against a regulation? think about it

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

no what you are implying is that despite having evidence to show that offers have been increased by far in excess of client fee

The Financial Ombudsman Service says:

"our statistics show that whether a consumer comes to us direct or uses a claims management company – there's no difference to the outcome of the disputes we settle"

Another lie by ppidisgrace exposed.

a person of free will stating this as a fact, that by stating the truth is against a regulation? think about it

But the reason your regulator prohibits you stating that you can get a better outcome is because it is NOT true.

While we are on the subject of what the Financial Ombudsman Service says, how about:

"Their claims-management business model relies on large volumes of straightforward, relatively high-value cases, from easy-to-find customers, where there is a high chance of success. Claims-management companies simply aren’t interested in most of the kinds of cases that fill your and our postbags outside these areas of 'mass complaint'."

In other words a CMCs only "cherry pick" the easy cases.

The Financial Ombudsman Service also says:

"At the ombudsman service we find it as distasteful as many others that claims-management companies regularly charge large sums for a second-rate service. We find it shocking that the arguments they raise are often irrelevant – or wrong – or simply made up."

Irrelevant examples I have seen - arguing that a firm did not comply with a rule that did not come into force at the time the policy was bought.

Wrong - complaining that a PPI policy was missold when it was not a PPI policy.

Simply made up - complaining that a consumer was pressurised into purchasing a policy which never existed.

All of these are potentially offences under the Fraud Act 2006 and would implicate the consumer in whose names they were committed.

Banks may have missold PPI but at least you can call on the Financial Ombudsman Service for assistance (free) and they are not going to lead you into criminal activity.

The "friendly" CMC could all too easily be a Trojan horse.

ppidisgrace

magpiecottage wrote: »

The Financial Ombudsman Service says:

"our statistics show that whether a consumer comes to us direct or uses a claims management company – there's no difference to the outcome of the disputes we settle"

Another lie by ppidisgrace exposed.

But the reason your regulator prohibits you stating that you can get a better outcome is because it is NOT true.

While we are on the subject of what the Financial Ombudsman Service says, how about:

"Their claims-management business model relies on large volumes of straightforward, relatively high-value cases, from easy-to-find customers, where there is a high chance of success. Claims-management companies simply aren’t interested in most of the kinds of cases that fill your and our postbags outside these areas of 'mass complaint'."

In other words a CMCs only "cherry pick" the easy cases.

The Financial Ombudsman Service also says:

"At the ombudsman service we find it as distasteful as many others that claims-management companies regularly charge large sums for a second-rate service. We find it shocking that the arguments they raise are often irrelevant – or wrong – or simply made up."

Irrelevant examples I have seen - arguing that a firm did not comply with a rule that did not come into force at the time the policy was bought.

Wrong - complaining that a PPI policy was missold when it was not a PPI policy.

Simply made up - complaining that a consumer was pressurised into purchasing a policy which never existed.

All of these are potentially offences under the Fraud Act 2006 and would implicate the consumer in whose names they were committed.

Banks may have missold PPI but at least you can call on the Financial Ombudsman Service for assistance (free) and they are not going to lead you into criminal activity.


The "friendly" CMC could all too easily be a Trojan horse.

hey thicko read properly, the offer has come from the bank - it hasnt been submitted to the fos, to advise you, before you are allowed to submit a claim to the fos, you must first go to the lender and give them 8 weeks to reach a final decision

I_luv_cats

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/default.stm


PPI refunds
One listener gets £50,000!


One lady saved £12,500 (+ VAT) by doing the ppi claim herself!!!

ppidisgrace

funny how you all went quiet when you realised that cmc's can and do get more, lenders can and do make wrong/unfair offers to consumers, martin lewis has been telling people its fair and simple to do it yourself and go direct to banks, martin lewis and mse and which take no responsability for any claims lost, everyone has featehred their pockets, the banks havent yet written to their customers about paying back refunds, martin lewis hasnt yet met with cmcs or done any due diligence on the banks and the banks next scandel libor shows that they cant be trusted buyer beware this forum is full of people paid for by the banks giving out misleading information lloyds who in conjunction with mse and martin lewis make the process simpler and better for customers have now increased the time to make a decision on a new complaint from 8 weeks to 16, well outside of fos guidelines, anything gonna happen to them..naaaaaa

dunstonh

funny how you all went quiet when you realised that cmc's can and do get more

That is a lie. Fact is you get less.

ppidisgrace

fact is what do you base that on?
from a personal point of view ive seen from a cmc where clients been offered 5k later to win 12k, which was more money to client taking account of fees

if you were as close to the action as you claim you would be aware of that
if you are not close enough to the action then dont advise on things you dont know about