Legal Ombudsman to gain jurisdiction over CMCs

magpiecottage

See here.

Not a moment too soon. It will be interesting to see what the uphold rates are.

kpwll

I wonder when some bright spark will set up a company to claim refunds from the CMC's, lol.

magpiecottage

kpwll wrote: »

I wonder when some bright spark will set up a company to claim refunds from the CMC's, lol.

I first came across that a couple of years ago.

Parasitise the parasites!

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

See here.

Not a moment too soon. It will be interesting to see what the uphold rates are.

I think that they will get published but as I understand it the complaints data will be published by the MOJ (rather than LeO) in their annual reports. http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/downloads/documents/work_other_bodies/120106-MoU-claims-management-reg-and-LeO.pdf

This is great news for consumers as unlike the FOS, operates with no caseload backlog and complaints are resolved within 3 months.

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

This is great news for consumers as unlike the FOS, operates with no caseload backlog and complaints are resolved within 3 months.

I wonder how long for!

I agree that it is good news, though.

Hopefully it will help to reduce the number of fraudulent complaints too which will help innocent firms whilst reducing the backlog for those with a genuine grievance.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

Hopefully it will help to reduce the number of fraudulent complaints .

It should do. However the MOJ puts a figure of 25% of complaints rejected by banks on the basis that there was 'no PPI' turn out that there actually was.

tifo

LoO still biased though.

I passed a complaint to them when they launched in Oct 2010 and despite my providing all the documents proving the solicitor was negligent, they believed the SPOKEN WORD of the solicitor who had no documents to back up his submissions.

They awarded me a small sum in compensation of the way the solicitor handled my complaint, not for the actual negligence itself, and then changed this without telling me. Later I was told it was because the 'investigator' had had a chat with a colleague, who (seemed to) persuade her to change her mind.

The LeO kept to no timescales as promised in their service procedure and apologised for the way THEY handled my complaint and said they are a new organisation and welcome the feedback.

So much like the FOS then .....

tifo

Alpine_Star wrote: »

the MOJ puts a figure of 25% of complaints rejected by banks on the basis that there was 'no PPI' turn out that there actually was.

you mean the banks tell untruths?

magpiecottage

tifo wrote: »

you mean the banks tell untruths?

It is possible. As some of you know, I am rather miffed that Santander seem to think the OED is wrong and "forever" means "until we decide otherwise".

However, there are two other reasons.

The first is that they are incompetent - that does not mean they are not culpable because they should make sure their staff are properly trained.

The second is that complainants do not give them sufficient information initially. For example, you give your name and address but they cannot find details of your account because it has long since been archived by account number only. If you then provide the account number they manage to find it.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

The second is that complainants do not give them sufficient information initially. For example, you give your name and address but they cannot find details of your account because it has long since been archived by account number only. If you then provide the account number they manage to find it.

If it has ''long been archived by account number only'' then the honest response would be just that and not ''there is no PPI''.

src007

Alpine_Star wrote: »

If it has ''long been archived by account number only'' then the honest response would be just that and not ''there is no PPI''.

The banks word their letters very carefully, so its very rare than you can pin them down as lying.

This is not to say they search their systems properly.

I once saw a complaint returned by RBS because they ''couldn't find PPI'' when prior to this they'd sent through a SAR response clearly showing that the insurance was added!

The paperwork showing PPI which we'd recieved FROM THE BANK was included with the complaint, yet the person dealing with this at RBS's end failed to find any policy in their systems.

If you use their own terminolgy, this was fraud.