Parents have signed with CAG - is it too far gone to pull out?

studavis

Without my knowledge my parents accepted a cold call from the Claims Advisory Group and to cut a long story short they started a PPI claim with them agaianst HSBC for various loans throughout the years.

My father signed and returned the Letter of Acceptance in late June, and the CAG got back in early September with an offer from HSBC. Clearly it's now at the point where CAG want paying for their services (approx £1500).

It was only at this point that I became aware of what my parents had done. He hasn't paid the balance that CAG are requesting as of yet, and hasn't received the balance from HSBC.

Previous knowledge and reading the forum here leads me to believe that we have gone past the point of no return. If at this point he pulls out with CAG they will pursue him for costs accrued so far. Is that accurate? What sort of costs do they start banding about if we were to pull out (and no doubt that this would be an arbitrary figure that's somehow miraculously is close to their commission anyway).

Is there any sort of recourse we could go down? Whilst I'm fuming with him, it's gonna kill me to hand that sort of money over to a figging PPI company. Now I'm involved I'm more than happy to take the PPI company on - how far do they normally go to pursue cost claims?

Any ideas / thoughts? Thanks.

[Deleted User]

studavis wrote: »

we have gone past the point of no return. If at this point he pulls out with CAG they will pursue him for costs accrued so far. Is that accurate?

Yes, once the Bank have received a complaint via the claims company and offered redress then the CMC will demand total payment of their commission (plus VAT) as they have completed their end of the legally binding contract your father signed.

There is a short period after the initial contract is signed when the customer can cancel the contract and usually pay only an administration fee for "work done". In your case, this period has long passed and your father will have to pay the full amount he agreed to pay in return for the CMC's "services".

As for "taking them on", by contesting this all you will do is have debt collectors chasing your father and ultimately court action if he fails to pay as agreed.

I'm no fan of claims companies, they do nothing that cannot be done by acting alone and charge a large percentage of any redress awarded. However, they act fully within the law and do offer a legitimate service so it's hard to see how you can progress any attempt to block payment.

studavis

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Yes, once the Bank have received a complaint via the claims company and offered redress then the CMC will demand total payment of their commission (plus VAT) as they have completed their end of the legally binding contract your father signed.

There is a short period after the initial contract is signed when the customer can cancel the contract and usually pay only an administration fee for "work done". In your case, this period has long passed and your father will have to pay the full amount he agreed to pay in return for the CMC's "services".

As for "taking them on", by contesting this all you will do is have debt collectors chasing your father and ultimately court action if he fails to pay as agreed.

I'm no fan of claims companies, they do nothing that cannot be done by acting alone and charge a large percentage of any redress awarded. However, they act fully within the law and do offer a legitimate service so it's hard to see how you can progress any attempt to block payment.

Unfortunately, that was the reply I was expecting - but thanks for outlining it. To confirm, the Letter of Acceptance is in essence the legally binding contract?

Having followed MSE all these years I know just how easy it is to do this yourself, hence my frustration with my parents at this time. :mad:

-taff

studavis wrote: »

Now I'm involved I'm more than happy to take the PPI company on - how far do they normally go to pursue cost claims?

They will take him to court.

[Deleted User]

studavis wrote: »

To confirm, the Letter of Acceptance is in essence the legally binding contract?

Yes, the legally binding contract is the agreement your father signed agreeing for them to represent him in PPI complaints.

magpiecottage

Unfortunately your father has been conned into paying for a worthless product/service - again!

[Deleted User]

magpiecottage wrote: »

Unfortunately your father has been conned into paying for a worthless product/service - again!

Yeah, first the PPI and now the CMC..

dunstonh

That is why CMCs are so successful. They have a captive market. If you have been sold to dodgily before then you will be again and again and again. That is why scammers sell their lists to others. You are marked as a mug.

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

That is why CMCs are so successful. They have a captive market. If you have been sold to dodgily before then you will be again and again and again. That is why scammers sell their lists to others. You are marked as a mug.

I recall a former member of your network being found to have set up an ambulance chaser and getting his old clients to put in complaints against himself.

It was only when he accidentally allowed something with his real name on it to go with his signature on the ambulance chaser's letterhead that an eagle eyed complaint investigator realised what was going on.

dunstonh

magpiecottage wrote: »

I recall a former member of your network being found to have set up an ambulance chaser and getting his old clients to put in complaints against himself.

It was only when he accidentally allowed something with his real name on it to go with his signature on the ambulance chaser's letterhead that an eagle eyed complaint investigator realised what was going on.

and i wonder who that eagle eyed complaint investigator was

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

and i wonder who that eagle eyed complaint investigator was

I have spotted a lot of things that have prevented complaints being upheld or more redress than was warranted being paid.

But this case was not one of them.