has anyone had any success with Capital One Credit Card

knoxvillain

chuckl1es wrote: »

MSE is full of sweeping statements in pursuit of its own gain.

How exactly does MSE gain from my PPI claim?

chuckl1es

Think of an industry, use your journalistic powers to tell people that they can do the job themselves (which is likely to be the case in the majority of industries), pick a hot topic. Now wind everyone up and direct them to a website where they can all snowball the message. In the meantime, gather a load of advertisers onto the site and hey presto you can make a fortune, so much so that you can take the unusual step of hiding it.

Which is all very well and quite clever except when it comes at the expense of others who are not rogues or vagabonds but who are just trying to earn a living, which despite the general view, is quite true in a majority of cases.

Competition is fair but not when its lopsided but maybe I'm being unfair to journalists !

knoxvillain

I guess that just illustrates how little you know on the topic then. So the glorious innocent CMC makes a large profit by taking 30% of ever claim they deal with and they saved us all from the banks and their PPI. And MSE are profiteers by letting us keep our claim money, having a few adverts on their site, providing good sound quality advice and being transparent (a term which cannot be applied to a CMC) and who instead of saving us from banks and PPI like your glorious CMCs have been winding us all up about PPI?

Right oh then. If that's how reality is for you on your planet I hope they swing by with your meds soon.

Can you point me to a single CMC that has a "how we work" section at the bottom of every page of their website or states up front transparently on their TV ad that they take 30% of your refund?

chuckl1es

knoxvillain wrote: »

I guess that just illustrates how little you know on the topic then. So the glorious innocent CMC makes a large profit by taking 30% of ever claim they deal with and they saved us all from the banks and their PPI. And MSE are profiteers by letting us keep our claim money, having a few adverts on their site, providing good sound quality advice and being transparent (a term which cannot be applied to a CMC) and who instead of saving us from banks and PPI like your glorious CMCs have been winding us all up about PPI?

Right oh then. If that's how reality is for you on your planet I hope they swing by with your meds soon.

Can you point me to a single CMC that has a "how we work" section at the bottom of every page of their website or states up front transparently on their TV ad that they take 30% of your refund?

I don't want to get into a personal slanging match, i will leave that to those that are not able to have a constructive discussion, however I will say that your statement is quite flawed and contradictory in itself.

'CMC makes a large profit by taking 30% of ever claim they deal' - Not all charge 30%, some charge less, again a sweeping statement and whatever they charge is certainly not profit, anyone in business knows there are overheads and costs, not least advertising and marketing (the very heart of the tool that has kept the ppi issue alive and in the public domain).

'and they saved us all from the banks and their PPI.' - Who else did this then ? It wasn't MSE, they got involved afterwards but ironically don't have the expense of marketing as they can use the media.

'And MSE are profiteers by letting us keep our claim money' - Its easy to jump on the bandwagon and its a lot easier to criticise rather than construct.

'and being transparent (a term which cannot be applied to a CMC)' - CMC's declare their accounts in the public domain at Companies House, MSE doesn't - I think that is clearly an incorrect statement.

knoxvillain

Now your just being pedantic which shows how weak your arguments are. MSE is not a limited company so there is no requirements to declare at Companies House.

As for transparency, how many people do you find on here who've went to a CMC and engaged with them and then discovered later that they old ave done the same thing yet. A prime example that CMCs don't make them aware of alternatives. I bet the majority of people on here are aware of alternatives and of CMCs and what they do. Your argument that CMCs are transparent is nonsense.

Again, CMCs are not interested in keeping the issue alive to protect consumer right but to maintain their profit line. It certainly was not a CMC that started the PPI claiming. They jumped on the bandwagon after MSE, after CAG when they discovered a quick buck could be made out of it.

chuckl1es

knoxvillain wrote: »

Now your just being pedantic which shows how weak your arguments are. MSE is not a limited company so there is no requirements to declare at Companies House.

As for transparency, how many people do you find on here who've went to a CMC and engaged with them and then discovered later that they old ave done the same thing yet. A prime example that CMCs don't make them aware of alternatives. I bet the majority of people on here are aware of alternatives and of CMCs and what they do. Your argument that CMCs are transparent is nonsense.

Again, CMCs are not interested in keeping the issue alive to protect consumer right but to maintain their profit line. It certainly was not a CMC that started the PPI claiming. They jumped on the bandwagon after MSE, after CAG when they discovered a quick buck could be made out of it.

The arguments are not weak at all. MSE WAS a limited company but took the very unusual step of un-limiting itself after the owner made over £1m in one year alone, so why would they want to un-limit themselves if they were totally transparent ??

I have said before, name and shame bad companies but it is wrong to make sweeping statements when perfectly ordinary peoples lives are at stake. Delivery companies are now all the target. Again, as Ive said, all industries have rogues and poor practices but its wrong to brandish everyone in an industry the same.

chuckl1es

knoxvillain wrote: »

Now your just being pedantic which shows how weak your arguments are. MSE is not a limited company so there is no requirements to declare at Companies House.

As for transparency, how many people do you find on here who've went to a CMC and engaged with them and then discovered later that they old ave done the same thing yet. A prime example that CMCs don't make them aware of alternatives. I bet the majority of people on here are aware of alternatives and of CMCs and what they do. Your argument that CMCs are transparent is nonsense.

Again, CMCs are not interested in keeping the issue alive to protect consumer right but to maintain their profit line. It certainly was not a CMC that started the PPI claiming. They jumped on the bandwagon after MSE, after CAG when they discovered a quick buck could be made out of it.

And I think I've proved myself right !
Mr Lewis sells out for £87m after criticising companies that he makes £millions out of.
What was that about 'maintaining their profit line' !?

saras_2

I'm a bit concerned that almost all of the ppi threads have been hijacked tonight by chuckl1es - it's getting boring now

Just to get back to the original post, I made a claim to Cap One on behalf of my mum who had a pre-existing medical condition which meant the cover would have been ineffective for everything but unemployment. I wrote a very simple letter outlining this and confirming that I do not believe the exclusions were explained clearly enough, had mum known she would not have bought the cover.

Cap One rejected the complaint stating mum applied by post and ticked the box for cover on the application. Cap One's letter was very confusing as it contained a long list of reasons for rejection, when I called them they explained that they have received thousands of letters from CMCs alleging mis-selling and just listing generic allegations which is a copy of the list of the FSA's open letter to the ppi industry. In order to be able to handle the volume of complaints within the 8 weeks allowed, Cap One took the decision to include standard rejection paragraphs in all letters.

This is a good example of how CMCs have had a detrimental effect on complaints because they seem to be clogging up the system with poorly researched complaints (some of whom have never had cover) and making it difficult for genuine complaints made by individuals to receive a thorough investigation and a clear response.

Cap One were genuinely apologetic about it and have promised to review the case and write back with a more clearly explained response.

chuckl1es

It really does make me laugh;

So lets get this right;

- Cap one conned your mother by selling her a policy she couldn't claim on.
- You wrote 'a very simple letter' explaining this and they rejected your complaint.
- Cap one's letter was 'very confusing'.
- Only when you challenged it, they used the excuse that cmc's had tried to make thousands of alleged miss-selling complaints (a convenient excuse).
- So they tried to con you, then tried to deny it and then blamed the cmc's for rejecting your 'very simple letter', which was from a consumer.

Oh come on...

And you buy that !

Skeptical_2

Cap one conned your mother by selling her a policy she couldn't claim on.

I don't think 'ticking the box' on a postal application is a con, do you?

Only when you challenged it, they used the excuse that cmc's had tried to make thousands of alleged miss-selling complaints (a convenient excuse).

A convenient excuse? I don't think you fully realise how many complaints are being sent to the banks/credit card companies about PPI, and quite how much time and money is being wasted due to fraudulent claims or people 'chancing' it.

And yes, many thousands of the complaints are 'alleged', as more often than not the customer can't remember how they signed up or anything about the initial sale.