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

burty8899

jdwmfc wrote: »

Just read both of your replies to each other and I am a little confused. Could you tell me how the CMC' managed to increase an offer from 5k to 12k?

good luck

gramochroi

Got to admit I don't get it either, and what is the 50% vanquis offer?? Probably don't ever need to know, but just curious? Thanks

burty8899

theres not much to get, he won't explain on what basis a CMC managed to increase an offer by over 100% but that only a CMC could have done it!!

no clue why he brought vanquish into it, just avoiding the question!

i just wish he could give a straight answer for a claim he made - think the phrase is all mouth an no action

burty8899

ppidisgrace wrote: »

i didnt challenge it, i saw an offer challenged
i dont have details of how they challenged it

think this sums up his claims in one- he 'saw' it challenged, I'm sure i just saw a pig fly over the moon too....

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

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

I stopped posting because YOU went quiet so there seemed to be no need to warn people that you are a liar and a fraud.

I have just checked the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2007, published by 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."

It also issued Guidance for Claims Management businesses engaged in the Mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) sector.

In this Guidance, it says "Where the claim falls within the Ombudsman’s province you must not suggest that a claimant will have a more favourable outcome if he uses the service of the business".

So clearly you continue to breach the clear written guidance of your regulator.

Unfortunately, that means I must apparently continue to highlight that you are misleading the public as, unfortunately, the anonymity of this forum means that I cannot report you to your regulator - although I have a strong suspicion that you work for a firm that is based only about four or five miles from where I will be next week and seems to get a disproportionately high number of complaints on this forum.

gramochroi

If he could write without looping between discussions and make sense, then I might be able to see an argument, but having seen various comments from him, think I'm over it. Is he just one of those people who pretend to have a lot more knowledge than is true?

[Deleted User]

gramochroi wrote: »

If he could write without looping between discussions and make sense, then I might be able to see an argument, but having seen various comments from him, think I'm over it. Is he just one of those people who pretend to have a lot more knowledge than is true?

It's worse than that, mate, he deliberately disseminates misinformation to annoy and provoke a reaction. I also doubt he has any links to a CMC, just a working knowledge of PPI and of the buttons to push in order to get enraged responses from some of the regulars here.
Beware, I also suspect he posts using many different pseudonyms.;)

gramochroi

But why? Sad!! Thanks for the response!!

magpiecottage

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I also doubt he has any links to a CMC, just a working knowledge of PPI

That knowledge does not actually seem to work very well.

[Deleted User]

magpiecottage wrote: »

That knowledge does not actually seem to work very well.

Well enough to provoke you (and others) into typing long responses to him on many occasions.
Well enough to dilute the encouragement this forum gives to people who post here unsure of their position with regard PPI.
I could go on...