MSE News: PPI summit: Commitment to help consumers reclaim for free

dunstonh

it is so sad, at the same time the banks are rejecting more and more claims, then publicity going out saying it is simple to win your claim just contact the banks directly

The FOS are rejecting more complaints as well. This is mainly due to the increase in fraudulent complaints being put in by the claims companies.

Capital One have excellent complaint stats which indicate they do treat complaints fairly. The FOS only overturn 11% of Capital One complaints. The other 89% they agree with Capital One.

and this is your definition of doing a great job?

Yes it is. You are always going to get some difference of opinion on certain complaints. It means that they are handling well over 90% of the complaints correctly.

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

something called terms and conditions agreed and approved by a regulatory body Ministry of Justice and OFT as opposed to contracts ruled unfair by courts and other regulatory bodies

ppidisgrace wrote: »

something also called pre contract terms and conditions

Most financial institutions, are incompetent because they are too because they are too big to control properly. The same is true of most large organisations. It is certainly true of the FSA and of FOS (the old Insurance, PIA, Bank and Building Societies' ombudsman schemes were far better even if it was a sometimes confusing finding the right one).

I am not defending that, I am simply saying it happens. If they get it wrong then yes they should redress any detriment caused to their customers. It is inconvenient doing it that way but in my mind is preferable to the cost of a zero failure system even if they could achieve it).

By comparison, CMCs are very small. They could operate within their rules and the law very easily - but they choose not to.

You are the evidence. You know that you are not permitted to suggest that you will get a better result for consumers than they can achieve for themselves.

Even if you did not know before you first posted to that effect on this site, I have pointed you to Client Specific Rule 12 on page 8 of the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2007, issued by your regulator, the Ministry of Justice. I have provided links to it and told you specifically where to find this rule.

Yet you, personally, consistently and deliberately flout that rule in the full knowledge that you are doing so.

[Deleted User]

magpiecottage wrote: »

Yet you, personally, consistently and deliberately flout that rule in the full knowledge that you are doing so.

Can we please not lose sight of who we are likely to be addressing in our numerous replies to "ppidisgrace"?
Are we truly dealing with someone who actually works for a claims company? Or is this the work of some bored teenager who is trying (and largely succeeding) to get a rise out of all of us?
I know which option I choose as the more likely..

dunstonh

Are we truly dealing with someone who actually works for a claims company? Or is this the work of some bored teenager who is trying (and largely succeeding) to get a rise out of all of us?

It could be both. As you don't require any qualifications or experience to work or own a claims company then a bored teenager could very well be a claims generator.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

It could be both. As you don't require any qualifications or experience to work or own a claims company then a bored teenager could very well be a claims generator.

Good point,:D but I do think we need to take this character far less seriously.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

magpiecottage

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Can we please not lose sight of who we are likely to be addressing in our numerous replies to "ppidisgrace"?
Are we truly dealing with someone who actually works for a claims company? Or is this the work of some bored teenager who is trying (and largely succeeding) to get a rise out of all of us?
I know which option I choose as the more likely..

What you mean like the one that committed a criminal offence by ringing my TPS registered number last night telling my wife she had been missold non-existent PPI.

What a pity I was out running a cub meeting!

[Deleted User]

magpiecottage wrote: »

What you mean like the one that committed a criminal offence by ringing my TPS registered number last night telling my wife she had been missold non-existent PPI.

No, my reference was to the user of this forum, not to any actual cold calling by CMCs.
As it says at the top of the page:
"This is an open forum-anyone can post".
That also means that anyone can claim to be whoever/whatever they want, whether it's true or not.
In other words, don't automatically assume that the poster in question is telling the truth. His apparent lack of written English skills, for example, is hardly indicative of someone in an administrative role is it?

magpiecottage

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

No, my reference was to the user of this forum, not to any actual cold calling by CMCs.

I take your point but I was simply pointing out the CMCs kick off about others not complying with regulations whilst ignoring any that they do not find convenient.

verityboo

I applaud ML and Which but feel that if they really want to help people ML could help by providing more info on this site

As a fan of MSE I suggested this site to a couple of colleagues who had had ppi and had decided to look into whether they could claim it back. Both came away confused and without all the answers they needed. They did find this part of the forum but gave up trawling through it to find info. One example is front loaded premiums which are not mentioned or explained in the claim guide pages. It is mentioned on this forum a lot, but not everyone would find it. My colleague wanted to know what it is, why its bad and is a reason on its own for mis-selling

The experience has shown to me why perhaps people turn to CMC's

[Deleted User]

verityboo wrote: »

I suggested this site to a couple of colleagues who had had ppi and had decided to look into whether they could claim it back. Both came away confused and without all the answers they needed. They did find this part of the forum but gave up trawling through it to find info. One example is front loaded premiums which are not mentioned or explained in the claim guide pages.

This criticism might better be levied directly to MSE rather than the forum