MSE News: Dodgy PPI claims firms face new Government crackdown

Former_MSE_Darryl

"Rogue PPI reclaim firms will face bigger fines in future, under Government plans to toughen up the way it regulates claims management companies...."

Read the full story:

Dodgy PPI claims firms face new Government crackdown



Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

magpiecottage

This is not really news - I have known about it for a week or two.

Don't hold your breath, though. We were told in August of last year that CMCs would fall under the jurisdiction of the Legal Ombudsman but nothing ever came of it.

Alpine_Star

MSE_Darryl wrote: »

"Rogue PPI reclaim firms will face bigger fines in future

''Bigger'' fines?

They currently don't face any.


Amendment to Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill at 'Before clause 121'
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2013-2014/0054/amend/am054-c.htm

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

Don't hold your breath, though. We were told in August of last year that CMCs would fall under the jurisdiction of the Legal Ombudsman but nothing ever came of it.

It's going to require primary legislation on the funding of it which really should have been tagged on to the above bill.

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

It's going to require primary legislation on the funding of it which really should have been tagged on to the above bill.

Which, if it had really been going to happen would have been done by now.

AB2014

Hi,

Regrettably earlier this year I used a CMC (Midas Management) to look into 3 accounts that I thought might have PPI on them. During the cold call they mentioned several accounts I recently had with other lenders - I asked them not to look into these accounts as I was aware I had a policy with them and that I was potentially able to make a claim. I subsequently signed a Contingency Fee Agreement and 3 letters of Authority asking the CMC to look into 3 specific accounts. In short, 1 out of the policies showed there was a claim that was upheld. As a result the CMC sent me their invoice and I promptly paid them for their services as per our agreement.

My dispute is with regards to a policy that I didn't ask the claims company to look into. As mentioned above I was aware of a policy id had and I thought I had a case that the policy was mis-sold. To cut a long story short, the bank in question looked through all my accounts and initially said I wasn`t mis-sold said policy, they also copied the CMC into this correspondence. I went on to appeal the decision myself through the FOS and subsequently had the decision reversed. The claims company now state they are owed a fee as a result if this - I disagree.

Further to me asking them to not look into this particular account, I have an email from the claims manager stating they didn't have a case file for this particular claim - thats because I didnt ask them to look into, nor did I sign any authority relating to it. Further more, the over-riding Contingency Fee Agreement states any appeal I make or any appeal made by my opponent will not be covered by the Agreement.

My last correspondence with the CMC was in June 2014, I made my point clear on the above and assumed all business between myself and the CMC was complete. I ask for anyone's advice as ive just received a letter from them (5 months later) saying they`re intending to issue county court proceedings against me unless I pay by this Friday 7th Nov. 2014. Attached with the letter is blue claim form with some details that aren't entirely correct summarising why they are intending to claim.

I'm obviously worried about getting a CCJ, I understand this isn't a CCJ but potentially the start of the process. This has come out of the blue and is untimely considering myself & my partner are expecting our first child within the next 5 months, as a result and leading on from this we`re looking to move house within the next year or two - not good news if you end up with a CCJ.

As it stands ive spoken with the CMC and asked why they think they have a claim and why they`ve left any dispute until now? I'm writing a formal letter of complaint to the CMC stating why I think im in the right & why I think they are in the wrong. This is further backed up with emails and the agreement with the relevant clauses highlighted. I'm requesting my agreements etc. also

I'm a little worried about all this & don't want it to get to legal proceedings - but I'm not one to be bullied / scared into paying over £400 when I honestly don't think I owe it.

Any advice / direction is much appreciated. Apologies for war & peace but these things are never easy!

[Deleted User]

AB2014 wrote: »

I'm a little worried about all this & don't want it to get to legal proceedings - but I'm not one to be bullied / scared into paying over £400 when I honestly don't think I owe it.

You need to urgently check the terms of the legally-binding contract you've signed with this company. If, as is often the case, you've signed an agreement for them to represent you in all PPI complaints then you'll have to pay I'm afraid.

AB2014

Thanks for the reply Moneyineptitude.

Looking at my letter of authority for each case it states I authorised the CMC to act on my behalf in relation to all aspects of the above referenced account and ALL linked agreements, loans, credit cards and mortgages taken out with the above lender / broker.

The above would suggest they have a case, but their claim for the particular case wasn't upheld by the bank. I was only paid out once I appealed via the FOS.

The same contract (titled contingency fee agreement), under section 2 states what is not covered by this agreement:
2.1 Any counterclaim against you
2.2 Any appeal you make or any appeal made by your opponent

Doesn't the above clause suggest my successful appeal isn't covered by the original contract - hence I don't have to pay them for this particular claim?

[Deleted User]

AB2014 wrote: »

The above would suggest they have a case, but their claim for the particular case wasn't upheld by the bank. I was only paid out once I appealed via the FOS.

It's not an "appeal" to FOS, it's a referral. The fact of the matter is that your complaint was (eventually) successful, so the Claims company fulfilled their part of the contract.

AB2014 wrote: »

Doesn't the above clause suggest my successful appeal isn't covered by the original contract - hence I don't have to pay them for this particular claim?

Attempting to argue semantics is not going to get you anywhere, I'm afraid. It definitely won't hold up in court.

The Claims company agreed to represent you in PPI complaints. The Ombudsman Service is fully a part of the financial complaints process. You received a payout and the CMC are now demanding their cut.

I think you'll have to pay them what you agreed.