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 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.
When an IFA gets a letter listing 21 supposed breaches of ICOBS, which came into force at the end on 2007, during the sale of a policy in 2004, I say it ought to have been obvious to the CMC that the allegations are untrue.
When an IFA gets a letter claiming the complainant was
"<<employmentstatus>>", I say the CMC is clearly sending out standard letters with total disregard as to whether the allegation is true.
When an IFA gets a letter claiming a PPI policy was missold when the provider of the policy is a Life Office and does not sell PPI from a consumer I accept this is probably a mistake. When it is from a CMC which holds itself out as competent in these matters, I say it should know this.they should have:
Obtained relevant paperwork from the consumer where this is available.
The key words in this are 'where avaliable'.
So why not ask the provider if it exists BEFORE making unfounded allegations?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.
I have said before that if somebody says they believe they had PPI that is not fraud - or if it is it would be because they did not believe it not because they did not have it (and it would be nigh on impossible to prove they did not believe it)
To say absolutely that they had it when the did not, by contrast is. That is why standard letters sent with no regard to the truth are fraudulent.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).
I accept there can be mistakes. However, I think you could help by being aware, for example, that particular providers do not sell PPI and therefore to proceed with a complaint on those grounds wastes everybody's time. (Ironically, I am probably the only one who stands to gain from these).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.
Obviously you only normally see your own firm's cases and letters but I consistently see exactly the same complaints churned out. As the complaint that somebody was an <<employmentstatus>> and the adviser had breached 21 rules three years before they existed was clearly initiated by a standard letter from the CMC not the recollections of the consumer.
I think the phrase "or might be" in the Act is the point. The FOS questionnaire helps (although it could be better worded). It would be helpful to know if it really is PPI or something else. It might be better for all if you asked if it might be something different at outset.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.
Of course it is possible that the "something else" has been missold - although generally it will be a long term contract fully underwritten and fully advised with proper fact finding.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.
You could, of course, decline to do so in such circumstances.Filling out a FOS form AFTER its been signed surely can't be legal?
Of course its not - it is fraud.0 -
When an IFA gets a letter listing 21 supposed breaches of ICOBS, which came into force at the end on 2007, during the sale of a policy in 2004, I say it ought to have been obvious to the CMC that the allegations are untrue.
How about when a mortgage adviser gets a complaint telling them the perfect recollection of what was said and what was done wrong despite the fact that no PPI was actually advised to be taken out?
How about when that letter is an identical template to one that has been used with other people complaining using the same claims company?So why not ask the provider if it exists BEFORE making unfounded allegations?
In the last MoJ bulletin they told claims companies to do this.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 -
Oh thank you so much for the chance......Very droll if you can't discuss a point. Before criticising others, perhaps you should look more closely at your own industry.
*yawn* you still here?Defaultless as of 12th Sept 2012
BugsyBrowne wrote: »Listen here default Dave why don't you take your bullsh*t and stick it up your defaulted ar*e and then stick your defaulted credit report and stick it in your defaulted gob.0 -
knoxvillain wrote: »*yawn* you still here?
Yawn !
SO YOUR HERO HAS SOLD OUT FOR £87M AFTER GETTING ALL YOU MUGS TO LISTEN AND BELIEVE IN HIM. SAINT LEWIS CONS YOU ALL AND YOU ALL FELL FOR IT.0 -
Ok, chance given and failed. Troll it is.
Oh surprise surprise, I spoke the truth and you didn't listen. Saint Lewis has sold out for £87m having fooled you all into believing that he really wanted to help you all. Convinced you all that you should 'go it alone' and made you all do the work for yourselves whilst making £millions out of people !0 -
Oh surprise surprise, I spoke the truth and you didn't listen. Saint Lewis has sold out for £87m having fooled you all into believing that he really wanted to help you all. Convinced you all that you should 'go it alone' and made you all do the work for yourselves whilst making £millions out of people !
whilst you might have a point, you talk from your !!!!
behave0
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