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

dunstonh

antdon wrote: »

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

Claims companies are not part of the financial services industry and the FSA has no remit over them.

Consumerist

dunstonh wrote: »

Claims companies are not part of the financial services industry and the FSA has no remit over them.

Perhaps that should change.

stereo_mike

The great thing about this article is that MSE are trying to defend the banks for all the PPI mis-selling, and trying to stop Claims Mangement Company's from making money, yet if i'm not mistaken it is the banks that help fund the MSE website, due to all the links posted over it about products they sell, therefore MSE clearly has a vested interest in backing the banks.

It would be interesting to know how many people have followed a link on the MSE website to a loan/credit card provider and then ended up getting PPI as part of the deal. Thinking this way MSE have actually contributed to the problem of PPI mis-selling themselves, and received a referral fee.

If Martin was so concerned about CMC's why doesn't he set up his own that charges a nominal fee to cover costs, for people that can't progress a claim themselves?

I don't back CMC's, but the banks are never going to refund every client who has been mis-sold PPI off their own backs, and some people are just to lazy to progress the claim themselves.

It will be interesting to see in the next year how many letters the banks write out to people saying they've been mis-sold and they can complain, and how many people will not actually make a complaint off their own back and obtain redress they are entitled to.

Consumerist

stereo_mike wrote: »

The great thing about this article is that MSE are trying to defend the banks for all the PPI mis-selling,

No. That's only what the CMCs are claiming. They don't want victims to know that it can be done by themselves for nothing.

. . . and trying to stop Claims Mangement Company's from making money, . . .

Not quite. MSE and Which? claim only that the charges are excessive.

. . . yet if i'm not mistaken it is the banks that help fund the MSE website, due to all the links posted over it about products they sell, therefore MSE clearly has a vested interest in backing the banks. It would be interesting to know how many people have followed a link on the MSE website to a loan/credit card provider and then ended up getting PPI as part of the deal. Thinking this way MSE have actually contributed to the problem of PPI mis-selling themselves, and received a referral fee.

In many cases PPI is appropriate. As far as I am aware, MSE is not against the the proper sale of PPI; it is however critical where it is mis-sold.

If Martin was so concerned about CMC's why doesn't he set up his own that charges a nominal fee to cover costs, for people that can't progress a claim themselves?

Why doesn't he set up a bank, an insurance company, a debt collection agency, a credit reference agency, . . .

I don't back CMC's, but the banks are never going to refund every client who has been mis-sold PPI off their own backs, and some people are just to lazy to progress the claim themselves.

There are good reasons why some people might want to employ a CMC to make their claim but shouldn't the charge reflect the work done and not just the size of the award?

It will be interesting to see in the next year how many letters the banks write out to people saying they've been mis-sold and they can complain, and how many people will not actually make a complaint off their own back and obtain redress they are entitled to.

Does that mean that it is justifiable for the CMCs to coerce bank customers to make a claim; often when there is no real justification. It would be interesting to know what percentage of failed claims were initiated by CMCs.

stereo_mike

No. That's only what the CMCs are claiming. They don't want victims to know that it can be done by themselves for nothing.

Not sure on this as one the regulator states that a CMC must advise the client that they can progress the claim themselves and advise a potential client about the FOS. As the MOJ has been reviewing CMC's this would have been highlighted as a concern if it had been established by the MOJ that this was not being done

Not quite. MSE and Which? claim only that the charges are excessive.

What's the difference between a CMC charging high fees and a mortgage broker charging excessive fees. The FSA allow brokers to charge what they like and allegadly they are more strictly regulated.

In many cases PPI is appropriate. As far as I am aware, MSE is not against the the proper sale of PPI; it is however critical where it is mis-sold.

How many people are just jumping on the band wagon and making a claim because their mate down the pub has?

Why doesn't he set up a bank, an insurance company, a debt collection agency, a credit reference agency, . . .

Because they are regulated, and this website isn't.

There are good reasons why some people might want to employ a CMC to make their claim but shouldn't the charge reflect the work done and not just the size of the award?

What about cases where the redress amount is less than a standard charge would be, then the client would be worse off, and people would start moaning about this instead

Does that mean that it is justifiable for the CMCs to coerce bank customers to make a claim; often when there is no real justification. It would be interesting to know what percentage of failed claims were initiated by CMCs.

It would also be interesting to know how many claims banks have declined stating there is no ASU/PPI when there is

Consumerist

Methinks you're in the industry.

Alpine_Star

What's the difference between a CMC charging high fees and a mortgage broker charging excessive fees. The FSA allow brokers to charge what they like and allegadly they are more strictly regulated.

There's no difference. MSE campaigns against all excessive charges. The FSA doesn't ''allow'' brokers to charge what they like as they have no price control powers not to allow it.

How many people are just jumping on the band wagon and making a claim because their mate down the pub has?

I don't know but the percentage of CMCs jumping on the band wagon would be far higher

Because they are regulated, and this website isn't.

How on earth would you know? You're just guessing.

What about cases where the redress amount is less than a standard charge would be, then the client would be worse off, and people would start moaning about this instead

Another reason not to use a CMC and instead take MSE's advice and do it yourself for free then eh?

stereo_mike

Consumerist wrote: »

Methinks you're in the industry.

That's pretty obvious from my signature tag line. Although work on the IFA side of things not CMC's

Consumerist

stereo_mike wrote: »

That's pretty obvious from my signature tag line. Although work on the IFA side of things not CMC's

So, as an IFA, you would recommend that your clients use a CMC to process a PPI mis-selling claim?

I'll say no more.

stereo_mike

Consumerist wrote: »

So, as an IFA, you would recommend that your clients use a CMC to process a PPI mis-selling claim?

I'll say no more.

I'd progress it on my clients behalf instead. I certainly wouldn't advise them to use this site, due to the mounds of incorrect information publicised on it