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

Consumerist

stereo_mike wrote: »

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

So now we come to the nub of it. You wouldn't tell them that they could do it for themselves for free before you offered to do it for them at a fee.

stereo_mike

Consumerist wrote: »

So now we come to the nub of it. You wouldn't tell them that they could do it for themselves for free before you offered to do it for them at a fee.

When did I say I charged for it?????

src007

Angela Knight and the BBA backing 'which' and 'MSE' is an absolute joke. I think the claims body is just trying to point this out, although they’re completely wrong about the lack of a need for stronger regulation from the MOJ.

The thought that after years of British Bankers designing financial products to rip people off and years of finding ways of pushing those awful products onto people and then years of blanket rejections and low offers for anyone who complained and years of breaches of the data protection act ,followed by a court case and refusal to deal complaints altogether (breaching the rules) that the BBA would suddenly ''see the light' and want to back the consumer bodies, is slightly odd to say the least.

The BBA is backing the campaign because it will save the banks money. Claims Companies cost because they encourage (mostly legitimate) complaints against the banks and get money back for people.

The only way that the commercial interests of the banks can be blocked is through the corporate interest of another organisation. Template letters and campaigns to ''do it yourself'' are all well and good but they're not going to galvanise anywhere need the same numbers as companies that have multimillion pound advertising campaigns.

It seems to me that Claims Companies exist because the public are at a power disadvantage against huge financial companies that play on the edges of the rules to earn as much money as they can.

If claims companies are so ''evil'' why are they so popular? About 50% of PPI complaints against banks come from CMCs and about 80% at FOS.

Tony Boorman from the FOS said - 'The BBA found out to its surprise in its research a few years ago – and as the Financial Services Consumer Panel had confirmed following its own research – many consumers actually [FONT=&quot]like[/FONT] claims-management companies, even if they have to pay (unnecessarily) for their services. And as consumers often tell us, when we ask them why they pay for something they could do themselves: “70% of [FONT=&quot]something[/FONT] is better than 100% of [FONT=&quot]nothing[/FONT]”.'

The government isn’t going to ban CMCs overnight and if there are people out there who have been treated badly, there are always going to be some that want to exercise their legal right to pay a company to complain for them. When will people move on and ask what practical steps could be taken to made sure claims companies are run more effectively, causing less disruption and bringing more money to the consumer?


This debate about CMCs on here is completely unconstructive as usual. The sad thing is the claims companies ''mis-sell'' in almost an identical way to the banks and a real opportunity to stop this, is missed when people both sides shout and scream past each other.

Really, the only way the finance sector can get rid of CMCs is to treat customers fairly. The more unfairly they treat their customers the bigger the CMC industry grows. This is why there is a multi-billion pound sector for PPI.

The whole thing is pretty simple really 1) encourage people to complain themselves 2) accept that some people don’t feel confident or can’t be bothered to do it and would rather exercise their right to pay someone to do it for them 3) crack down on the '‘mis-selling’’ and fraud in the claims management industry.

magpiecottage

stereo_mike wrote: »

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

Are you aware that to do that as a business you need to be registered as a CMC with the MOJ?

magpiecottage

src007 wrote: »

“70% of [FONT=&quot]something[/FONT] is better than 100% of [FONT=&quot]nothing[/FONT]”

But that misses the point - 100% of something is better than 70% of the same something - and both FOS and the MOJ insist that a CMC will achieve no better an outcome than pursuing the complaint yourself.

~Brock~

src007 wrote: »

Really, the only way the finance sector can get rid of CMCs is to treat customers fairly. The more unfairly they treat their customers the bigger the CMC industry grows. This is why there is a multi-billion pound sector for PPI.

Absolute rubbish.

CMC's will continue to exist and grow whilst there remains a complaints mechanism that is completely one sided against the financial services firms in that they get charged for the complaint regardless of the outcome. CMC's know this and thrive on the 'bribery' element that this introduces.

Although no doubt set up with the best of intentions for consumers, it is this FOS case fee mechaniscm and this alone that CMC's are happy to exploit by submitting any old complaint in the knowledge that there will be no financial recourse back to themselves should it fail.

I have got no problem with the idea of CMC's providing they exist on a level playing field where they are financially accountable for wasting evweryone's time with crackpot complaints that have no hope of succeeding.

As 'professionals' in their field they of all people should know if a complaint has got legs so why is this charging them for failed cases such a difficult concept for FOS to take on board?

dunstonh

Really, the only way the finance sector can get rid of CMCs is to treat customers fairly. The more unfairly they treat their customers the bigger the CMC industry grows. This is why there is a multi-billion pound sector for PPI.

We are getting reports of claims companies putting in complaints about investments on the basis that the value has gone down. There is nothing wrong with investments going down but that appears to be a new trend. Thankfully, we have been told that most of these are quite easy to reject thanks to documentation being better today than it was say 10 years ago. However, it doesnt stop the cost to the firm or the worry for the adviser who usually takes these sorts of things personally.

in some of the cases, the advisers have gone back to the client and ask why they complained and the client was mortified to find the complaint was against the adviser, who they had no issue with, and they were told the investment company would pay compensation.

src007

dunstonh wrote: »

We are getting reports of claims companies putting in complaints about investments on the basis that the value has gone down. There is nothing wrong with that but that appears to be a new trend. Thankfully, we have been told that most of these are quite easy to reject thanks to documentation being better today than it was say 10 years ago. However, it doesn’t stop the cost to the firm or the worry for the adviser who usually takes these sorts of things personally.

in some of the cases, the advisers have gone back to the client and ask why there complained and the client was mortified to find the complaint was against the adviser, who they had no issue with, and they were told the investment company would pay compensation.

I understand where you're coming from. However investment complaint updhold rates are pretty high against some organisations and I suspect what CMCs are sometimes highlighting is the fact that the risks really weren't made clear to some people (althought the advisor is guaranteed a % cut whatever the outcome!!)

I have personally had an investment complaint upheld against Halifax (I know I'm an idiot for trusting them, in the days before I knew what banks were there for) I was told in around 2007 that in a worst case ‘'9-11’’senario I would lose 10% of what I invested. Even at that extreme, I was told the fund would bounce back quickly.

When my loss hit 20% during the credit crunch, sure, I was aware that it was an unforeseen event, but it was beyond what I’d signed up for. When you think that - had I placed my investment as cash with monkeys in a cadged room, they would have eaten 10% of my profit and I'd have lost some of it but it would have been a better investment than with Halifax, it makes you think. 20% was too much to ask for so I put in a compaint.

It would have been far better for me to have my money in a current account all the time. It was beyond my risk level and I pulled out my money, at a great loss.

Lucky as I was working for a CMC at the time knew the complaints process and received a full refund with 8% interest.

Had I not worked for a CMC I know as 100% fact, I would have never complained. I got 100% of the refund but a CMC may have got 70% back for me when I would have got nothing had I not known of the complaints process.

I know that you and Magpiecottage will always have a difference of opinion, but I hope it is only that.

Whereas someone like 'ppi disgrace' highlights the saying:

"Don't argue with an idiot. They will only drag you down to their
level, and beat you by experience."

src007

~Brock~ wrote: »

Absolute rubbish

What I have been told, is that Credit Card charges complaints make no money for CMCS. The only reason they do it, is to get additional PPI complaints.

Therefore the complaints process itself can't generate much money. Only when a decent % of complaints are genuine can money be made.

src007

~Brock~ wrote: »

I have got no problem with the idea of CMC's providing they exist on a level playing field where they are financially accountable for wasting everyone's time with crackpot complaints that have no hope of succeeding .

Sure the MOJ should do more. But it would be a much easier arguement for you, if complaint uphold rates were below 20% at the FOS.

Also, remember that an evidential bias from FOS doesn't mean there is a bias in outcome. Claims company complaints that are on the surface ''crackpot'' may be working in a genuine area of consumer grievance and therefore benefiting people.