Belmont Thornton have sent a bill 21 months after refund recieved

KevJ

Well, it looks there was some healthy debate about this which I'm glad about as I was unsure what to do.

As an update, I sent a complaint letter and BT have decided 'on this occasion' to waive the fee which I'm pretty happy about.

In case it helps anyone in the future I've copied and pasted my letter which you can see below...

---

Dear Sir / Madam,

I write with reference to your letter dated 4th June 2013.

The fact that the letter was sent 2nd class is a fair but probably generous account of the service received from yourselves.

I wish to dispute the amount owed and lodge a formal complaint. My complaint is that the service I have received is directly contrary to the regulations set out by The Ministry Of Justice Conduct Of Authorised Persons Rules 2013 as amended on 1st April 2013. Namely:

• Principle 5 states that “A business shall observe all laws and regulations relevant to its business”.
• General Rule 6 (b) states that “A business shall comply with the rules relevant to it and shall certify annually that it has done so, when requested by the Regulator”.
• The ‘Client Specific Rules’ section header introduces a list of rules that Claims Management Companies ‘MUST’ follow. Principle 18 states that when representing a client they MUST “keep the client informed of the progress of the claim, including any significant changes to costs that the client may have to meet, and must forward any relevant information received from the client without delay”.

Quite simply I received payment from RBS via cheque in September 2011, no breakdown, no further information, just payment. I have had no correspondence from Belmont Thornton whether by phone, letter, email or otherwise since before September 2011, that is a 21 month gap in contact before writing to give me 28 days to pay you £1,425.90. This is unacceptable.

You have failed to keep me informed of the progress of my claim and due to this you are in breach of The Ministry Of Justice Conduct Of Authorised Persons Rules 2013 Principle 5 and Client Specific Rules 2013 as amended on 1st April 2013. You will be further in breach of said code of conduct if (as according to General Rule 6 (b)) you falsely certify when requested by The Ministry Of Justice that you have complied with all rules relevant to your company.

As per advice received from The Ministry Of Justice today I am to write to you directly and advise you of the steps you should take to resolve my issue. In order to resolve my issue that you have breached The Conduct Of Authorised Persons Rules 2013 I request strongly that you withdraw your demand immediately and in its entirety. I further request that you confirm both receipt of this letter and agreement to withdraw the payment demand within 14 days.

I am aware of my right to escalate this fair complaint to The Ministry Of Justice if my complaint has not been dealt with to my satisfaction within eight weeks. I am further aware that The Ministry Of Justice are duty bound to use any information I provide to consider enforcement action against Belmont Thornton as it has breached the conduct rules. I would expect not to receive any further demands for payment in this time.

Further to this complaint please note my married surname of xxxxxx and that my address has changed.

Finally, I also intend to use my right under the Data Protection Act 1988 to make a Subject Access Request. I understand you will make a charge for this and I request you let me know what this is immediately so that I can make this request. I feel the information will further help my complaint and that delaying this request will be looked upon dimly by both the Data Commissioner and The Ministry Of Justice.

I trust this matter can be dealt with swiftly, professionally and without obstacle and look forward to hearing from you within 14 days.


Kind regards,

---

As I said, I hope this can help someone else in the future.

dunstonh

Good job and thanks for feedback.

flakeyb

I got the same from BT demanding nearly £1000 which the bank paid two years ago! I sent an edited version of the letter by email and they waived the fee. If I hadn't seen this post I would have paid the money out.Thanks. :T

ICan'tStandIt

I'm glad you got it sorted, but feeling "confident it had been dealt with" is roughly translated as not having the balls to call them and ask them if you owed anything just to make sure.

I'm glad, however, that you managed to get one over on one of these parasite fee-charging PPI companies, so well done for doing that

roonaldo

ICan'tStandIt wrote: »

I'm glad, however, that you managed to get one over on one of these parasite fee-charging PPI companies, so well done for doing that

To lodge a PPI mis-sale complaint it is free. To refer a complaint to FOS is free.

If you decide to pay a company to do it for you, why is a fee for their services unreasonable?

ICan'tStandIt

roonaldo wrote: »

To lodge a PPI mis-sale complaint it is free. To refer a complaint to FOS is free.

If you decide to pay a company to do it for you, why is a fee for their services unreasonable?

At the risk of going off-topic, whilst it's not unreasonable to charge, I think it is unfair for these so-called professional organisations not to charge similar fees and also not to point out that people can do it for free themselves and get the same result.

These fee-charging CMCs are not on a moral crusade, they have seen a chance to make money out of other people's misfortune and are no better than the banks that mis-sold the PPI in the first place.

dunstonh

I think it is unfair for these so-called professional organisations not to charge similar fees and also not to point out that people can do it for free themselves and get the same result.

They are not professional companies. They are opportunistic chancers. Parasites preying on the weak.

-taff

ICan'tStandIt wrote: »

I think it is unfair for these so-called professional organisations not to charge similar fees and also not to point out that people can do it for free themselves and get the same result..

Well, if these people actually had some sense, if they went to the websites of the companies they want to complain to, this is made completely plain to them.....

roonaldo

dunstonh wrote: »

Parasites preying on the weak.

I expect many firms/ banks would say that about their customers who send in phony complaints!

ICan'tStandIt

-taff wrote: »

Well, if these people actually had some sense, if they went to the websites of the companies they want to complain to, this is made completely plain to them.....

So you are saying that people deserve to be ripped off if they are not as up to speed on money and finances as you seem to be ?