Anyone ever used Owl claims to reclaim PPI?

Nasqueron

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Its on page 1 of their terms and conditions in the same font size as the rest of the page so it is hardly 'in the small print'. For comparison, I got my motor insurance policy yesterday that came with a 78 page A5 booklet. If you are going to criticise a company, at least take the ten seconds to see if it is true.

Not telling people up front and putting it in Ts & Cs that they know people will not read is precisely "putting it in the small print".

The FAQs are in a much bigger font and make no mention of it, you have to skip down to point 4.4 to see any mention of having to pay even if all the PPI is set off - this sort of tactic is exactly the same as dubious PPI sales staff skimming through a form and saying "sign here here and here".

addedvaluebob wrote: »

What utter junk. The banks routinely sold products costing the public billions of pounds and you think that the CMC's mis-sell more than that, it's laughable.

The CMCs have taken hundreds of millions (if not more) from customers fooled by their lies about it being hard to reclaim or that they have more success (see the ASA decision to ban certain adverts from CMCs from lying) - as 99%+ of those people could have got their money back themselves and were not informed how little the CMC does and how much work they have to do just for the CMC to put a stamp on an envelope they are just as bad as the banks for miss-selling a service.

How many complaints from CMCs are packed with lies? How many claims from CMCs make all sorts of miss-selling claims about products where there wasn't even any PPI on the account?

Payment Protection Partnership:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/09/payment-protection-insurance-ad-banned

ReclaimPPIToday:
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/news-and-analysis/regulation/asa-upholds-claims-firm-complaint-over-misleading-ppi-ad/2010928.article

Gladstone Brookes:
http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/news-and-features/sectors/regulation/regulation-news/asa-bans-ppi-claims-firms-ad-after-complaint-from-rbs/1043581.article

PPI Careline:
http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/news-and-features/sectors/regulation/regulation-news/asa-bans-ad-from-ppi-claims-firm/1039387.article

Lion Claimline
http://www.bestadvice.co.uk/ppi-claim-firm-email-ad-banned/

roonaldo

'Most don't follow MoJ guidelines', do you have any statistical proof of this at all,

because I think everyone on here would like to see it otherwise it is just a another myth.

In 2011 the MOJ struck off 734 CMC's. In just April to Nov last year they struck off 209. This far outweighs the (the alleged cowboys) that the FCA remove.

I also seem to remember Lloyds Banking Group saying a couple of years ago that half the complaints they received from CMC's had no PPI sold anyway!

Have you not ever read and about the bad press they constantly get? You seem to be kidding yourself.

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/regulation/moj-shuts-down-209-claims-firms/1063691.article

addedvaluebob

Nasqueron wrote: »

Not telling people up front and putting it in Ts & Cs that they know people will not read is precisely "putting it in the small print".

The FAQs are in a much bigger font and make no mention of it, you have to skip down to point 4.4 to see any mention of having to pay even if all the PPI is set off - this sort of tactic is exactly the same as dubious PPI sales staff skimming through a form and saying "sign here here and here".

How many complaints from CMCs are packed with lies? How many claims from CMCs make all sorts of miss-selling claims about products where there wasn't even any PPI on the account?

The customer has to sign a form saying they have read the T & C's before they give authority

Skip down to 4.4, it's on the same page, how short an attention span does someone need to not be able to read a one page document before agreeing to give a company 30% of their money

When you last upgraded or purchased software did you read the T&C's? How many people have an itunes account that have read the T&C's - just about nobody because it runs into hundreds/thousands of words.

I would just like to see a bit more sense in some of the postings apart from all the (choose a category)

CMC/Bank/Financial adviser/Debt manager/plumber/anyone who charges for anything are crooks/liars/bandits/overcharge/deliberately misled me

addedvaluebob

roonaldo wrote: »

In 2011 the MOJ struck off 734 CMC's. In just April to Nov last year they struck off 209. This far outweighs the (the alleged cowboys) that the FCA remove.

I also seem to remember Lloyds Banking Group saying a couple of years ago that half the complaints they received from CMC's had no PPI sold anyway!

Have you not ever read and about the bad press they constantly get? You seem to be kidding yourself.

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/regulation/moj-shuts-down-209-claims-firms/1063691.article

Is that the same Lloyds bank that loses 90% of cases that were referred to FOS and was fined for deliberately turning down legitimate claims.

I am not kidding myself, the claims industry has lots of problems that the MoJ have routinely failed to get to grips with, if it had been properly constructed from the start then a lot of these companies would never exist.

Please also remember that many of these companies are solicitors and the whole no-win no fee was born out of the legal profession and the fees they charge (I missed them from my previous post) at 30% plus of any compensation/redress.

Nasqueron

addedvaluebob wrote: »

The customer has to sign a form saying they have read the T & C's before they give authority

Skip down to 4.4, it's on the same page, how short an attention span does someone need to not be able to read a one page document before agreeing to give a company 30% of their money

When you last upgraded or purchased software did you read the T&C's? How many people have an itunes account that have read the T&C's - just about nobody because it runs into hundreds/thousands of words.

You just broke the argument you made in the second paragraph with the third lol - putting it in the Ts & Cs, not being upfront and telling customers (especially if they are made aware of debts being written off/in arrears) if a perfect example of hiding it in the small print - the company knows the majority won't read terms and conditions, they don't make people aware of it, they profit, the customer loses.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

I would just like to see a bit more sense in some of the postings apart from all the (choose a category)

CMC/Bank/Financial adviser/Debt manager/plumber/anyone who charges for anything are crooks/liars/bandits/overcharge/deliberately misled me

So the links to 5 different PPI reclaim firms who were making false or misleading claims in their adverts who were censured by the ASA were not acceptable examples of CMCs being less than legit?

OK then

EMC Advisory - fined £70,000 for nuisance calls and breaking the TPS rules

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Devon-PPI-centre-firm-fined-70-000/story-23026501-detail/story.html

"Save Britain Money" (as featured on the BBC show "Call Centre") - Nationwide Energy Services and We Claim You Gain fined £125,000 and £100,000 respectively

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2275614/bbc-call-centre-firms-fined-for-ppi-nuisance-calls

Tetrus Telecoms (supplied CMCs and ambulance chasers with leads) fined £440,000 for spamming texts while the claims firms were threatened with fines for using the data illegally under DPA rules

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240084/War-PPI-sharks-Warning-rogue-firms-pair-sent-spam-texts-fined-440-000.html

Plus again, PPI firms take a huge chunk of refund for doing nothing more than posting a letter while hiding the obligation to tell you it can be done for free in the small print.