We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
A quarter of PPI claims fraudulent
Comments
-
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.
You work for a CMC so you know, or ought to know (because it is your job) your regulator, the Ministry of Justice has said, in CMR Bulletin 14 "Please read the letter from the Ombudsman and ensure you are following this guidance before submitting complaints to them. We fully support the guidance and will be monitoring compliance".
So your regulator requires you to carry out the instructions FOS has given.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?).
The guidance is intended to ensure that a policy really does exist.
If you have followed it to the letter and the evidence still indicates a policy exists and there is a genuine complaint then you have a case. If it indicates to the contrary you should discontinue.That would merely make the CMC incompetent and lazy (it goes without saying that higher standards are needed for CMCs).
You overlook the fact that 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."
If you allege that a PPI policy has been sold before you go through the FOS guidance, you know, or ought to know, that it might be untrue. Therefore the representation is false and the offence committed.
In the cases I have seen since Bulletin 14 was published, the CMCs have not submitted the FOS form to the firm, as the guidance requires so my point remains that they have not checked to see if it was true. Therefore they knew it might be untrue. Therefore if the policy did not exist. Therefore if the policy does not exist the offence has been committed.
Laziness, incompetence, ingorance - none of these is an excuse in the eyes of the Law.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.
I am simply referring to the Fraud Act 2006, which I have read, along with the explanatory notes. I therefore speak from knowledge.
I am telling you what Parliament has said. If you do not like it, you need to take that up with your MP, not me.At one time RBS were committing blatant fraud.
They may have done, they may not - but this thread is about fraudulent complaints, not fraudulent defences.
If you are prosecuted, the fact that somebody else has committed the same offence, even if they have done it many times more than you have, is not a defence.0 -
magpiecottage wrote: »Y ou work for a CMC so you know, or ought to know (because it is your job) your regulator, the Ministry of Justice has said, in CMR Bulletin 14 "Please read the letter from the Ombudsman and ensure you are following this guidance before submitting complaints to them. We fully support the guidance and will be monitoring compliance".
So your regulator requires you to carry out the instructions FOS has given.
The guidance is intended to ensure that a policy really does exist.
If you have followed it to the letter and the evidence still indicates a policy exists and there is a genuine complaint then you have a case. If it indicates to the contrary you should discontinue.
You overlook the fact that Section 2(2) of the Fraud Act 2006 says:
If you allege that a PPI policy has been sold before you go through the FOS guidance, you know, or ought to know, that it might be untrue. Therefore the representation is false and the offence committed.
In the cases I have seen since Bulletin 14 was published, the CMCs have not submitted the FOS form to the firm, as the guidance requires so my point remains that they have not checked to see if it was true. Therefore they knew it might be untrue. Therefore if the policy did not exist. Therefore if the policy does not exist the offence has been committed.
.
The FOS e-mailed that guidence to all CMCs. I think you misunderstand because the guidence is designed to minimize the 'no-PPI' situation' not remove it completely. It says that a CMC should follow steps to reduce the amount of 'no PPI disputes' it doesn't say that you have to ensure that PPI was on every account that you complain about. All the guidence steps can be followed and there will still be disputes about whether a policy exists.
On a dayly basis I review paperwork that a consumer has sent in, that clearly shows no PPI was added to an account. Why would someone send this into a CMC? I don't think you don't realise how confusing financial paperwork is for many people.
The FOS guidence says:
Wherever possible, it would be desirable for claims managers to help their clients obtain full details of loan or card agreements – for example, providing statements or similar documentation.
and they should have:
Obtained relevant paperwork from the consumer where this is available.
The key words in this are 'where avaliable'. Often a consumer will have thown away all the paperwork. There is no requirement for a consumer to have proof of PPI before they make a complaint and so there is no requirement for a CMC to do so either. Otherwise there would be an obtruction to someones right to use a third party (should they wish to).
The CMC however should ask the consumer for paperwork and ask the consumer if they believe there is PPI.
Within a CMC form there will be a 'declatation of truth' that the consumer has to sign. If the consumer writes on the form 'I wasn't aware PPI was optional' and signs that paperwork, how has the company comitted ''fraud'' when a no-PPI letter comes back? Also it would be very hard to show that the consumer has been dishonest because there are many reasons why they may mistakenly think there was PPI (for example if it was another type of insurance and they don't understand the terminology).
Don't get me wrong, sometimes I see a no-PPI letter come from a bank and look at what the consumer wrote on our forms and it may be something like 'I was pressured to take the insurance'. It does make you question their integrity.
However, I find in practice many consumers get very confused about what PPI actually is (there could be insurance but its not PPI) or which of their accounts had PPI (mix-ups are very common) or they had PPI but the bank no longer has records - and in each of these cases the bank throw out a 'we haven't been able to trace a policy letter' whilst there has been no dishonesty. Some banks investigate all loans, when the consumer has complained about just one and will spit out 'no-ppi' letters even when allegations haven't been made.
It really doesn't follow that a 'no-ppi' letter automatically shows fraud (although in some cases it might). Therefore the claim that 'a third of CMC complaints are fradulent' simply isn't true.
The company I work has only ever had a tiny handful of 'no PPI complaints' at the FOS and even those happened because the consumer swore blind there was PPI (when there wasn't) and insisted the complaint went to the FOS. We of course asked for proof but sometimes we have to work from our client's memory.
Sticking to the thread, theres something that I noticed other CMCs doing that they've been doing for ages (sometimes another CMC's paperwork gets posted to us in error) that the MOJ only just seems to have found out about - that companies are asking customers to sign the FOS questionnaires before its been completed (the CMC ONLY sends the client the last page, which requires a signature).
PPI questionnaire - declaration
We are concerned that some businesses appear to only be sending the declaration page (“section F: your declaration”) of the Financial Ombudsman Service’s PPI consumer questionnaire to clients to sign. This is unacceptable. The declaration requires your client to read and sign the form which states ‘that all of the information given in the questionnaire is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge’. You must always ensure that your client has had the opportunity to read and check the information in the questionnaire in its entirety before
they sign the declaration. If you are only sending the declaration page you are likely to be in breach of General Rule 1 (honesty and integrity) and General Rule 2 (acting responsibly).
Filling out a FOS form AFTER its been signed surely can't be legal?0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9237831/Lloyds-slams-fraudulent-PPI-claims-as-profits-rise.html
"The bank revealed that 25pc of the PPI claims turn out to be without merit and that about a third of the cases referred to it by claims management companies were for products that never had PPI sold against them."
Thats rich !
If Banks hadn't defrauded people in the first place there wouldn't be any claims.0 -
Thats rich !
If Banks hadn't defrauded people in the first place there wouldn't be any claims.
The banks didnt defraud people. Indeed, the legal routes taken by some have found the courts siding with the lenders. The issue is largely due to banks pushing the envelope too far and the FSA letting them get away with it for decades and then changing its mind and bank dating it.
The banks did wrong but is that an excuse to commit fraud? Do you go out and commit crime because others do?I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Don't feed the troll!The banks didnt defraud people. Indeed, the legal routes taken by some have found the courts siding with the lenders. The issue is largely due to banks pushing the envelope too far and the FSA letting them get away with it for decades and then changing its mind and bank dating it.
The banks did wrong but is that an excuse to commit fraud? Do you go out and commit crime because others do?0 -
The banks didnt defraud people. Indeed, the legal routes taken by some have found the courts siding with the lenders. The issue is largely due to banks pushing the envelope too far and the FSA letting them get away with it for decades and then changing its mind and bank dating it.
The banks did wrong but is that an excuse to commit fraud? Do you go out and commit crime because others do?
You've lost me. If they didn't defraud people why are they paying out ?0 -
If they didn't defraud people why are they paying out ?
Because the FSA moved the goal posts and backdated it leaving them largely without an ability to defend what they did. In many cases they did wrong but it has also allowed those where no wrong doing was done to make opportunistic complaints.
The law and the FSA are two different things.Don't feed the troll!
I'm giving him a chance. May regret it but you never know.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
-
Because the FSA moved the goal posts and backdated it leaving them largely without an ability to defend what they did. In many cases they did wrong but it has also allowed those where no wrong doing was done to make opportunistic complaints.
The law and the FSA are two different things.
I'm giving him a chance. May regret it but you never know.
So did Banks miss-sell or not ?0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »It's "ppidisgrace" again.
??????????????????0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards