A quarter of PPI claims fraudulent

ppidisgrace

if the banks dont want people to use cmcs why dont they just write to everyone

Declaration_2

There was also an article in the Times quoting a bank about CMC and PPI claims. The Times was relatively sympathetic, but concluded that if the banks had not missold PPI on an industrial scale then they wouldn't be in this position.

magpiecottage

ppidisgrace wrote: »

if the banks dont want people to use cmcs why dont they just write to everyone

Why don't you write to all 70 million people in this country that you have not sold PPI to and tell them you have not?

Declaration wrote: »

There was also an article in the Times quoting a bank about CMC and PPI claims. The Times was relatively sympathetic, but concluded that if the banks had not missold PPI on an industrial scale then they wouldn't be in this position.

Superficially, that sounds fair - until you think it through. Let me give an example.

Suppose I drove to, say, Manchester at 80 mph and got there in 2½ hours. It is 200 miles from me so I could not legally get there in less than 2¾ hours.

In that ¼ hour I park my car quite legally and then another driver hits it. A court will find that driver at fault - regardless of the fact that I should still have been on the motorway at that time.

roonaldo

ppidisgrace wrote: »

if the banks dont want people to use cmcs why dont they just write to everyone

write to everyone about what? PPI is not illegal, not wrong to have but in a lot of cases has been mis-sold. besides the banks are writing to customers about ones they know were probably mis-sold.

src007

magpiecottage wrote: »

Section 2(2) of the Fraud Act 2006 says

"A representation is false if
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading."

So if you say you were missold PPI when you know you might not have even have had it, you commit an offence under that Act.

The name of the Act is, I think, a pretty strong hint as to what that offence is.

When a company has received 100 identical complaints and the last 99 have been ruled in favour of the consumer by the FOS, when that firm get the 100th identical complanit and rejects it, would you also call that ''fraud''?

When bank staff send out a letter saying that there is no PPI on an account, when a PPI policy exists on that account. Would you call that ''fraud''?

When a lender sends out an ''enhanced rebate'' offer designed to mislead a consumer into settling for redress outside FOS guidelines when they know the FOS will uphold the complaint in full, is that ''fraud''?

hmmmm, if you're widening fraud to that extent, then there's 10,000s of instances of fraud coming out of the finance sector at the moment, as well.

dunstonh

Part of the problem is that the FOS are slow to react to obvious try it ones. It happened with endowments as well where they would uphold earlier complaints but later on they would reject them as they could clearly see the abuse taking place.

The FOS is a little liberal as well. It tries to see the good in everyone and cannot believe people try it on until it is really obvious to even them that they are.

ppidisgrace

they have paid out 2billion , 6 billion to go, send the people they have allocated as the 6bn their money, and write to the 12 million, whens that happening?

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

Part of the problem is that the FOS are slow to react to obvious try it ones. It happened with endowments as well where they would uphold earlier complaints but later on they would reject them as they could clearly see the abuse taking place.

The FOS is a little liberal as well. It tries to see the good in everyone and cannot believe people try it on until it is really obvious to even them that they are.

They would do well to remember 1 Timothy 6 v10: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

magpiecottage

if you're widening fraud to that extent, then there's 10,000s of instances of fraud coming out of the finance sector at the moment, as well.

The question is whether or not they knew it was, or was likely to be, untrue.

Thus those letters from Barclays saying sales in the 1990s are outside FOS jurisdiction when it was under the Banking Ombudsman probably are fraudulent because their systems should have been overseen by their compliance team who should have known it was untrue.

Similarly, there have been posts that indicate a couple of major car dealerships have indicated that because it is more than six years since the sale the consumer cannot go to FOS, without considering whether it is more than three years since they learned they had cause for complaint. I imagine that will have been a factor in the fine one of them received this week.

On the other hand, if a clerk carries out a search but cannot find any trace of a policy then they would not have any reason to suppose one did exist. That would be a mistake but not fraud.

But none of this takes away from the fact that a CMC churning out a standard letter with no consideration whatsoever to whether it is true or not IS fraud.

Take for example the complaint on my desk at present.

The CMC knows the policy number and the insurer but has not bothered to check with the insurer to see if it really is a PPI. They should have realised it might not be and that, therefore, their assertion that it could never pay out as much as the premium might not be true.

In fact, it is not. It is from a Life Company that does not offer PPI - and the policy could potentially pay out almost £600,000.

So the statement was untrue and the CMC should have realised it might have been - that IS fraud.

Remember this is a case where the information could have been gathered quite easily - but the CMC was incompetent, lazy and fraudulent.

src007

magpiecottage wrote: »

. Take for example the complaint on my desk at present.

The CMC knows the policy number and the insurer but has not bothered to check with the insurer to see if it really is a PPI. They should have realised it might not be and that, therefore, their assertion that it could never pay out as much as the premium might not be true.

In fact, it is not. It is from a Life Company that does not offer PPI - and the policy could potentially pay out almost £600,000.

So the statement was untrue and the CMC should have realised it might have been - that IS fraud.

Remember this is a case where the information could have been gathered quite easily - but the CMC was incompetent, lazy and fraudulent.

The CMC is in the same 'position' as a consumer. If a consumer makes a stupid mistake that isn't fraud thats a stupid mistake.

What happens if the consumer signed a letter for the CMC to say they were making a PPI complaint (even though it was a life policy). The CMC hasn't said anything they knew was untrue because they have no reason to believe their client would lie (maybe the consumer is just mistaken, like you think the bank staff are, when they issue the no PPI letters?).

That would merely make the CMC incompetent and lazy (it goes without saying that higher standards are needed for CMCs). I think this talk of ''fraud'' is massively overexagerated because you want to 'demonize' CMCs in the same way that they've 'demonized' the fanancial sector. You're therefore falling into the same ignorance trap as them.

At one time RBS were committing blatant fraud and THEY phoned me up saying 'all your complaints are the same'. I told them it was because they mis-sold in the same way to many consumers. That was in 2009 and thats when I made a point of writing out complaint points with slightly different wording just to annoy them. Almost, all the complaints that they rejected which were submitted to the FOS were upheld, so I feel vindicated in terms of that phone call, which in hindsight was absurd given how many cases they were losing. It really shocked me how far from reality the complaints handers at the bank were. Often RBS wouldn't even write to our CMC despite the fact we'd sent in an original letter of authority. When you called them about it they'd say 'we can't talk to you because you haven't submitted correct authortity'. Someone at the bank wasn't authorising CMCs correctly. That really was fraud because they'd send low offers to our clients directly hoping they'd accept.