Belmont Thornton have sent a bill 21 months after refund recieved

KevJ

Hello,

I would really like some advice please, I'm in two minds where my wife stands.

The scenario is that my wife used Belmont Thornton for a PPI claim and received 2 cheques directly from RBS in August / September 2011 totalling around £6,000. We presumed that as the money was sent direct from RBS that Belmont Thornton had received their cut, we waited a few months before spending any of it and didn't receive any correspondence so felt confident it had been dealt with.

My wife has last week received a letter from Belmont Thornton -the first contact since before the payout - demanding around £1,500 in charges to be paid within 28 days.

Now, she / we agreed the terms when instructing them. However it is very poor form to wait nearly 2 years before demanding the money (which has obviously been spent!). Further to this I believe that waiting 21 months is contrary to both:

1. Paragraph 18 (Client Specific Rules), Conduct Of Authorised Persons Rules 2013

2. Outcome 3 of FSA Treating Customers Fairly.

I was wondering what your collective thoughts are please?

Many thanks in advance.
Kevin

-taff

Our thoughts don't matter. You paid a company to complain for you, you should have paid them. They will take you to court if you don't pay them, so it's up to you.

McKneff

They hav 6 years to persue what you or yours what is owed.

magpiecottage

KevJ wrote: »

1. Paragraph 18 (Client Specific Rules), Conduct Of Authorised Persons Rules 2013

"A business must make explicit to the client his right to seek further advice or to shop around, subject to any time limits within which a claim must be made."

I cannot see the relevance of that to your grievance.

2. Outcome 3 of FSA Treating Customers Fairly.

As the FSA no longer exists and it never regulated ambulance chasing anyway, that is even less relevant.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

"A business must make explicit to the client his right to seek further advice or to shop around, subject to any time limits within which a claim must be made."

I cannot see the relevance of that to your grievance.

You should have gone to Specsavers. That's rule 13.

Client Specific Rule 18 says ''A business must keep the client informed of the progress of the claim''.

On the limited information provided I'd say it would apply.

dunstonh

Now, she / we agreed the terms when instructing them. However it is very poor form to wait nearly 2 years before demanding the money (which has obviously been spent!). Further to this I believe that waiting 21 months is contrary to both:

1. Paragraph 18 (Client Specific Rules), Conduct Of Authorised Persons Rules 2013

2. Outcome 3 of FSA Treating Customers Fairly.

I was wondering what your collective thoughts are please?

You wife appears to be mistaking regulations and applying them to companies that dont have those regulations applied to them. The FSA (now FCA) do not regulate claims companies. You cannot quote FSA rules to a claims company as they do not apply.

Effectively, what you have here is a debt. Your wife owes a company money for providing a service she agreed. She has failed to pay that company. her excuse is unlikely to succeed because when the money was paid to her, RBS would have supplied a breakdown. Nowhere would it have said Belmont were being paid.

Her contract with Belmont would almost certainly have included a provision to make sure you tell them once you have been successful. The claims company often doesn't get told or has to chase it up after a period to find out. With PPI complaints frequently taking upto 2 years, a wait of that period is not unusual.

Claims companies tend to be very hard on people refusing to pay their fees. They give a few chances and if they get nowhere, they go to the small claims court. As much as I dislike claims companies, your wife doesn't appear to have a leg to stand on as you employed them, agreed to pay them and have failed to pay them. Your "assumption" that they were paid is flawed as you will not have one bit of evidence to support that in court and indeed, the redress payment calculation supplied to you with the payment will clearly show the claims company were not paid.

Your wife should be looking to agree a payment plan with them over 12-24 months. If she doesn't expect them to go to the small claims court. Given the information supplied here, you cannot see your wife having much of c case in her favour.

tifo

I think the OP is getting the claim confused with one such as RTA's where the clams company or solicitor are paid directly by the insurer and separate to the client's compensation. However, in that case it is made clear at the beginning.

-taff

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Client Specific Rule 18 says ''A business must keep the client informed of the progress of the claim''.

On the limited information provided I'd say it would apply.

I wouldn't. Their claim paid out 2 years ago. It wasn't keeping them informed of the claim that was the problem. It was the failure to ask for their money.

Alpine_Star

tifo wrote: »

I think the OP is getting the claim confused with one such as RTA's where the clams company or solicitor are paid directly by the insurer and separate to the client's compensation. However, in that case it is made clear at the beginning.

Its you that's confused.

Belmont Thornton's T&Cs provide that ''The client agrees to authorize the company to remit the compensation to Belmont Thornton and for Belmont Thornton to retain the fee before paying the client''.

Given that the OP didn't subsequently receive an invoice its not unreasonable for him to assume they hadn't had their fee.

Alpine_Star

-taff wrote: »

I wouldn't. Their claim paid out 2 years ago. It wasn't keeping them informed of the claim that was the problem. It was the failure to ask for their money.

According to the limited information provided BT failed to keep them informed of the settlement offer or the settlement itself.

If they had they wouldn't be invoicing them 2 years down the line.

Additionally as the fee has a significant bearing on the net value of the claim, it necessarily applies to the progress of it.

-taff

There's no information at all about whether they did or didn't. It's entirely possible they didn't know about the settlement fee.

Reading between the lines, the OP and his wife knew Belmont hadn't been paid, otherwise why wait a few months before spending it? They could have got in touch if they thought they hadn't been paid but they were avoiding it in the hopes they wouldn't get in touch.
And going by your own quotation of the T&Cs, the cheque should have come from Belmont , not RBS, which would have been another clue they hadn't had their fee.