MSE News: Claims body attacks MSE and Which? over free PPI reclaiming

chuckl1es

Thanks RuthnJasper. Its quite refreshing to read it !

JuicyJesus

RuthnJasper wrote: »

Though, as dunstonh says above, it is very easy to be snared by the dubious promises of some of these firms, so I am sure there will be many who signed up to use such firms in good faith, as well as those to whom I allude here, who willingly hand over their bank details or sign over financial authority to third parties without much thought to the potential consequences...

Are you suggesting that some people posting here might have done things recklessly and without thought to the consequences, and are now blaming everyone else for their mistakes?

Perish the thought.

RuthnJasper

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Are you suggesting that some people posting here might have done things recklessly and without thought to the consequences, and are now blaming everyone else for their mistakes?

Perish the thought.

Ah, I would never presume to judge others... :whistle:

As your less-Juicy predecessor once did, I would advise them to repent of their former wicked deeds, then go - and sin no more... Then I'd be off for a quick stroll down the Thames to a good hostelry for a spot of water-changing fun!

brit1234

I may starting replying to these annoying intrusive text messages texting "yes", when they call start quizzing how I can get it for free through MSE and Which and that they will get no commission through me..:)

roonaldo

The CMC must be stopped, I find them a load of lying cowboys.

They are worse then the firms they make foney allegations against.

magpiecottage

The Claims Standards Council's members include that well known para[STRIKE]gon[/STRIKE]site The Claims Guys.

wozearly

michaels wrote: »

Of course not all PPI was miss-bought, those who were told it was compulsory when it was not have a good case, those who bought it without even shopping round to see if there were cheaper competitor products for what was a sizeable charge have no sympathy from me.

Its not about mis-buying, but mis-selling. Mis-buying is a poor financial decision, but one with no legal recourse. You wouldn't get a refund for saying "Actually, with hindsight, I shouldn't have bought this cover." Its a different story if the company mis-sold the policy, as this is essentially fraudulent activity on their part and a breach of the contract with the customer, therefore you can claim the premiums back.

Some people may have spotted the mis-sell and steered themselves out of the way. Good for them, for not being cheated out of their money. Others may have been told it was compulsory, some were signed up to it without realising, some were sold it despite the fact they would never be eligible to claim on the policy. In all of these cases, the company was breaking regulations and is legally obliged to return the premiums.

Its only because this was so widespread in the industry (rather scary, to be honest) that PPI has become a well-known scandal and a lucrative market for claims management companies, rather than a minor error by overenthusiastic and immoral sales professionals.

chuckl1es wrote: »

Everyone conveniently forgets, that if cmc's hadn't spent literally £m's on promoting and marketing PPI Miss-selling, then banks would still be sitting on £billions of our money.

I don't think people doubt that fact that they've helped a lot of people, and there is nothing 'wrong' with using a CMC. But some of them have been, ironically, mis-selling their services to get a chunk of money from customers who were...err...mis-sold services by someone else. And in virtually all cases, those customers could have claimed directly and saved themselves large chunk of money CMCs take from the final settlement.

Naturally, some people may have knowingly decided they didn't want that hassle and their expensive publicity has undoubtedly raised more awareness about PPI mis-selling than might otherwise have been the case. All of which is great, but the fact that CMCs have helped some people along the way doesn't excuse those that also take part in shoddy behaviour, in the same way the fact that some people benefitted from PPI doesn't excuse banks and insurers mis-selling to others.

That the CSC is attacking Which? and MSE not because they made mistake, or a misunderstanding, but by implying that criticising CSCs means they're siding with the banks is a bizarre line of approach. Its purely designed to create confusion around their message from a PR perspective, in order to help protect the rather healthy industry that's sprung up around PPI reclaiming.

Consumerist

What else could one expect from the CSC.

The banks hide behind the BBA and these PPI claims firms will hide behind the CSC. Perhaps they can now see the writing on the wall.

Great stuff MSE. I actually laughed out loud when reading the article. "Siding with the banks", indeed !

Alpine_Star

chuckl1es wrote: »

Everyone conveniently forgets, that if cmc's hadn't spent literally £m's on promoting and marketing PPI Miss-selling, then banks would still be sitting on £billions of our money.

You're quite wrong here.

It was actually Which? that first raised the PPI issue in 1998 - long before PPI CMCs existed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/8431821/Timeline-the-perils-of-payment-protection-insurance.html

antdon

It really is about time the FSA, or some other body, got hold of the whole financial services industry any limited the profits they can make.

Claims companies should be limited to 5% of the claim...

Perhaps there should now be a case for reimbursement of claims fees from the claims companies, due to misrepresentation of the complexity of the claims they handle