Mortgage Monthly PPI

Mark_123

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

All I know is that you seem to have very recently joined this forum seemingly to make a series of inflammatory posts about this websitec and it's users. Telling us to "rot in hell" is not the wisest start to your posting history.
I don't know whether your story is true or not. I never said it was false.

I very RECENTLY got forced out of business by misconceptions spread by websites such as this

Until my bank manager pulled the plug earlier today on my secured overdraft stating I have more going out in fees to FOS than income coming in I ignored this type of site and fought my corner

Mark_123

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I smell troll.
Regardless, you just went onto "ignore".

what the hell is a troll ??

Ignore me, wonder why

[Deleted User]

Mark_123 wrote: »

what the hell is a troll ??

Funny how your advent coincides with the return of ppidisgrace, isn't it?
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...9#post54481569

Mark_123

no

nothing about my situation is funny

answer my points please if you have anything worthwhile to add

magpiecottage

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

You know perfectly well that the PPI typically mis-sold by Banks and other lenders WAS overly expensive compared to similar cover available elsewhere.

Maybe but that is not what you said to the OP, who is new h

You also know that I'm not one of those who has advocated going to FOS in a frivolous or fraudulent manner.

Yes I do - but the OP is new to this site and independent brokers generally did (and continue to) sell competitive products.

I agree that the OP (if his story is true) is another victim of the PPI mis-selling scandal.
What I object to is his needless accusations against this website and it's users, especially when there are others far more culpable than us in his demise.

I do not think he is a victim of the misselling scandal but of the compensation culture and a system which encourages fraudulent complaints to be made without risk.

gramochroi wrote: »

Maybe being over simplistic here, but if a complaint is not upheld against against a broker, financial institution, whatever, why are they charged £500 per complaint?

I understand it works in favour of somebody like me who is making a relevant (I know; I would say that) claim and the institution/individual will pay out if there is doubt rather than risk the £500 fee, but surely things have got to be fair and work both ways.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

The Ombudsman is financed in such a way that the complainant gets a free service and the financial institution (or broker) pays the bill regardless of whether the complaint is upheld or not.

This might not seem fair in the case of the independent advisor who has to pay for opportunistic complaints (many from claims handlers) which are not upheld

I do not think it merely SEEMS unfair - it quite clearly IS unfair. If the OP had instead been taken to court and won, this would have been dealt with as a small claim in most cases as the amounts involved will generally be less than £5000. Therefore the losing party would pay the court fee - maximum £500. That seems fair to me.

but in the grander scheme of things the idea is that the ordinary man in the street can feel there is an arbiter who is not in thrall to the big lending institutions.

You should have a look at the CAG forum (and more than a few threads here) if you believe that.

It's also an incentive for lenders to do proper investigations of PPI complaints.

Not really. The only way for the firm to avoid the fee is to pay redress regardless of whether it is justified or not.

The government set up FOS this way deliberately, unfortunately there are always some who are disadvantaged as a result.

Gordon the Unelected Moron Brown set it up this way with total disregard to the fact that it would encourage the compensation culture.

And the banks simply add it on to their charges so we all pay.

This is not a victimless crime.

I DO think this site has been somewhat overenthusiastic in encouraging complaints without proper consideration of whether it is fair and reasonable.

The OP has lost his business, his livelihood and, by the sound of it, his home as a result not simply of this site but of what it represents.

I wonder how many of us would simply take that as being "part of the greater good" and not be as bitter as he understandably seems to be.

I think the OP should write to the Chief Ombudsman and his MP and tell both what has happened and ask them what they intend to do about it.

It is unlikely to help him but at least they might give some thought to the consequences they have caused between them.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Funny how your advent coincides with the return of ppidisgrace, isn't it?
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...9#post54481569

So far he is simply timewasting rather than spouting forth the lies he was last time - so I will leave him alone for the time being.


Nothing personal in this Moneyineptitude. I think the OP has fired off a bitter post which I think we can excuse as I think he has wholly reasonable grounds for it.

As you know, I have actually quoted the good practice guide published by the Mortgage Code Compliance Board regarding PPI for mortgages (page 14 thereof). It seems that the OP has actually been following that.

Mark_123

I employed three compliance officers through the days of the code and then the FSA. They structured our PPI process, two of them now work for the FSA. We had 100% monitoring of all advisors for at least one year. Constant reviews, all calls to clients recorded. Product confirmation letters signed and discussed on recorded calls before the client signed to confirm they understood the implications of the insurance.

But no this is not enough - several have told me that it is unfair they can not have their PPI back because everyone else had. Even had clients accuse me of pretending to be them on call recording to FOS

When they listen to a recording that proves there claim is bogus some have said there was 'another' call from someone different within my firm after the compliance call stating ignore what the advisor said, you have got to have it or we will reject your deal. I could go on and on

dunstonh

I do sympathise with your situation Mark. I too have had fraudulent complaints, although not on PPI. The system does penalise those that have done no wrong.

However, on these forums you will find most of the regulars will tell people when they have no case or where they do have a case and do not help people to put in fraudulent complaints. Obviously some people will because consumers are no less greedy or corrupt then others they go on to complain about.

There is a way to go about these things. Yes point out the issues but dont go off on one at the people here that do try and balance things up a little and give fair opinion.

Mark_123

I take your points on board but I fail to see Moneyineptitude's posts as fair and even opinion.

magpiecottage

Mark_123 wrote: »

I take your points on board but I fail to see Moneyineptitude's posts as fair and even opinion.

I think Moneyineptitude is concerned because a few months ago we had an idiot calling himself ppidisgrace, who apparently is an ambulance chaser, coming on here and coming up with all sorts of lies - including that the MOJ had said that the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2007 did not have to be complied with.

He disappeared for a while but has suddenly turned up again this week.

Moneyineptitude thinks perhaps he and you are one and the same weirdo who is trying to create dissent by making opposing outlandish statements.

pm me your FRN and I will see if I can verify your legitimacy.

magpiecottage

magpiecottage wrote: »

Moneyineptitude thinks perhaps he and you are one and the same weirdo who is trying to create dissent by making opposing outlandish statements.

pm me your FRN and I will see if I can verify your legitimacy.

Never got a pm - perhaps Moneyineptitude was right.

I am, though, very concerned that small, honest, traders are being driven to the wall by the compensation culture and the ability to make fraudulent complaints with no risk.