MSE News: Vote 'yes' for CPP redress

stclair

g24040 wrote: »

What will happen to people who, like me, have moved house a couple of times since they had the policy? Will CPP find a way to track down our current address, or will we need to approach them ourselves?

I rang them this morning to change my address seemed pretty simple.

When should I contact my bank / card issuer?


For matters relating to the scheme, you are not required to contact your bank / card issuer at this time. If you do have any further queries regarding the scheme, including updating the address we will send letters to please contact us using the details on the contact us page.

CrashJPMorgan

Out of curiosity, why have they decided to have a vote on the issue of redress/compensation?

1) they are not sure if people were mis-sold hence asking the people?
2) they know many will not reply or receive the letters thus limiting the payout, if it happens?
3) some other reason?


Have they done this before?
Seems odd to me.

funkyfreks

:think: I got one of these letters.
I don't even know what it is or if I ever was paying them or what it's all about.
I don't think they owe me anything, I'll just vote yes as suggested if it helps others.

dawnmaud

QUESTION:

If capital one are involved in this mis-selling then should I try again to claim back my PPI???

I took it as far as the ombudsman but they said I was not mis-sold PPI but what I am querying is that if capital one were aware of the CPP then have they mis-sold me the PPI when they were aware of how CPP was being sold.???

-taff

No, you are clutching at straws. PPI and CP is completely different and one being missold doesn't mean the other was.

veryintrigued

funkyfreks wrote: »

:think: I got one of these letters.
I don't even know what it is or if I ever was paying them or what it's all about.
I don't think they owe me anything, I'll just vote yes as suggested if it helps others.

May help former policy holders in terms of a windfall they werent expecting. But someone, ultimately, has to pick up the price. Maybe its CPP employees in terms of job cuts, maybe banks and other organisations share holders in terms of dividends, maybe bank customers in terms of increased charges, or maybe the tax payer (i.e. you and I).

Crabman

veryintrigued wrote: »

May help former policy holders in terms of a windfall they werent expecting. But someone, ultimately, has to pick up the price. Maybe its CPP employees in terms of job cuts, maybe banks and other organisations share holders in terms of dividends, maybe bank customers in terms of increased charges, or maybe the tax payer (i.e. you and I).

This is a matter for which CPP's management is wholly responsible.

They should never have mis-sold in the first place and therefore should not have had the cash flow, turnover and consequential profit that they enjoyed.

This scheme is going to attempt to put some consumers back in the original position. Not all consumers will benefit. For example, those who have changed address since an old CPP policy lapsed, those who are not written to by CPP and who don't initiate a claim themselves.

veryintrigued

Crabman wrote: »

This is a matter for which CPP's management is wholly responsible.

They should never have mis-sold in the first place and therefore should not have had the cash flow, turnover and consequential profit that they enjoyed.

This scheme is going to attempt to put some consumers back in the original position. Not all consumers will benefit. For example, those who have changed address since an old CPP policy lapsed, those who are not written to by CPP and who don't initiate a claim themselves.

I can see you've quoted my passage but cant see where you actually reference any of the content.

I was replying to funkyfrek - specifically the 'helps others' comment. i.e. it may well help one group of people - but certainly wont others. Ultimately someone has got to pay. If you think its the people in bold that are the biggest losers, the ones 'that'll pay' and the only people with responsibility in this matter I feel you're wrong.

What about the banks and other institutions who were a conduit to these being sold? The regulators who are only now playing catch up as they have the clout? And it goes without saying that the consumer holds no responsibility at all doesnt it.:rotfl:

This payment may help limited end consumers - and some of these might even have been genuinely missold these policies!!

Crabman

veryintrigued wrote: »

And it goes without saying that the consumer holds no responsibility at all doesnt it.:rotfl:

I've received several invitations (more like demands) from CPP to take out a policy. This has generally been when receiving a new debit/credit card with a sticker advising I must call a specific number to 'activate' the new card.

Upon calling the number they asked for my name and address (printed on the letter accompanying the new card - great security measure) and it quickly transpired their sole aim was to sell a CPP policy so I would be covered for 'fraudulent' use of the card. Despite such cover being superfluous to consumers' statutory protection.

CPP didn't hesitate to lie, mislead and apply significant pressure to sell a policy. This included running through scenarios where, for example, a 'criminal' made thousands of pounds of purchase on a card and left the consumer liable for the costs.

It's difficult to see how consumers could possibly be argued as responsible for mis-selling in this situation.

veryintrigued

Crabman wrote: »

I've received several invitations (more like demands) from CPP to take out a policy. This has generally been when receiving a new debit/credit card with a sticker advising I must call a specific number to 'activate' the new card.

Upon calling the number they asked for my name and address (printed on the letter accompanying the new card - great security measure) and it quickly transpired their sole aim was to sell a CPP policy so I would be covered for 'fraudulent' use of the card. Despite such cover being superfluous to consumers' statutory protection.

CPP didn't hesitate to lie, mislead and apply significant pressure to sell a policy. This included running through scenarios where, for example, a 'criminal' made thousands of pounds of purchase on a card and left the consumer liable for the costs.

It's difficult to see how consumers could possibly be argued as responsible for mis-selling in this situation.

Then you may fall into the final para I posted (which you seem to have left out in the quote).