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

ppidisgrace

gramochroi wrote: »

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

im happy to advise, vanquis make customers a lot of offers which are only 50% of what they are entitled to. There are ways of challenging these offers in order to get the full offer to which you are entitled. This is a steer in the right direction, in terms of the way to do this, I am not the correct person to advise you on a forum but I hope this has been helpful, my advice would be if this is something you wish to gain more advice speak to a reputable representative who has experience of dealing with vanquis claims

ppidisgrace

magpiecottage wrote: »

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.

you've copied and pasted that around a million times. im not a cmc , im an individual, i saw a cmc show me an offer as detailed previously in the thread, im not bound by cmc regulations, so off course I am free to say what I have seen and know to be true, give over with yourself now, what you want the consumer forum where we are here to share information to be regulated by the moj
if thats the case and you are giving claims advice, what is your moj reg number out of interest?

burty8899

ppidisgrace wrote: »

you've copied and pasted that around a million times. im not a cmc , im an individual, i saw a cmc show me an offer as detailed previously in the thread, im not bound by cmc regulations, so off course I am free to say what I have seen and know to be true, give over with yourself now, what you want the consumer forum where we are here to share information to be regulated by the moj
if thats the case and you are giving claims advice, what is your moj reg number out of interest?

oh god its back, and at 2am - typical troll style!

you say you saw it and you know it to be true - how did you see it? did the claims company do it for you? did you work for them?

because if it wasn't either of those 2 i would love to know how you have seen this without breaking ICO guidelines and laws? claims and bank info is personal info so how did you 'see' it?


as i said above I've just seen pigs fly over the moon and katy perry lying naked on my bed - hmm i wonder if I'm telling the truth? i suppose you will just have to take my word for it because i saw it.........

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

you've copied and pasted that around a million times.

No more times than you have sad it.

im not a cmc , im an individual

You told us before that you worked for one

i saw a cmc show me an offer as detailed previously in the thread, im not bound by cmc regulations, so off course I am free to say what I have seen and know to be true

That of course would be a blatant breach of Section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

ppidisgrace

john mcenroe springs to mind - you cannot be serious

burty8899

ppidisgrace wrote: »

john mcenroe springs to mind - you cannot be serious

agreed you cant be!!

does anyone get the feeling that this guy has one too many castlemain xxxx during the day and likes to vent his anger on here at silly AM.....

[Deleted User]

burty8899 wrote: »

does anyone get the feeling that this guy has one too many castlemain xxxx during the day and likes to vent his anger on here at silly AM.....

Definitely under the influence of something mind-altering!:D

magpiecottage

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Definitely under the influence of something mind-altering!:D

I disagree - you can only alter what is there in the first place.