Dunstonh, Moneyinepitude et al

Quentin

I have stated what evidence I have supplied such as call recording and
documentation and I have this on every sale ever made in 13 years.

That is irrelevant to the customers right to make a complaint!

You accused me of :

Brokerwise wrote:

I do not agree with consumers being encouraged to make false claims that's all.
You and certain area's of the site are guilty of this and that is a fact.

I see you ignore this:

Quentin wrote:

Please show me where I have encouraged false "claims" (or "complaints")!! Or retract the accusation.

Please address it.

dunstonh

picky123 wrote: »

dont you get25 free complaints a year, I know we do.

Not all firms do. I don't for example.

Brokerwise

Quentin wrote: »

That is irrelevant to the customers right to make a complaint!

You accused me of :



I see you ignore this:



Please address it.

Not going over old ground, another poster agreed with your implied post and you never answered the revenge part or what that actually implies.

Quentin

Brokerwise wrote: »

Not going over old ground, another poster agreed with your implied post and you never answered the revenge part or what that actually implies.

I cannot find any question regarding "the revenge part" to answer??

Didn't you know MSE advertised as the "consumer's revenge" website?

Please either show me where I have encouraged false "claims" (or "complaints"), or retract the accusation.

Brokerwise

I posted

Basically, a firm like mine gets charged £500 by the FOS for a complaint even if it is nonsense and totally without merit

You posted

Which is why people knowing this on MSE advise it's well worth pursuing a complaint to the FOS.

and

Bearing in mind the management time involved with dealing with the FOS it is a likely outcome a company will take a business approach to a complaint and nip it in the bud by making a goodwill gesture to the client. Far better business than allowing a complaint to escalate at far greater cost.

Quentin

Neither of those posts are advocating "false" claims are they? (Or false complaints for that matter!)

Please remove the accusation.

(As previously posted it's your opinion the complaints are "nonsense" or "without merit", which you would say! We have the right to get this adjudicated by the FOS, not the company with a vested interest)

Brokerwise

Quentin wrote: »

Neither of those posts are advocating "false" claims are they? (Or false complaints for that matter!)

Please remove the accusation.

(As previously posted it's your opinion the complaints are "nonsense" or "without merit", which you would say! We have the right to get this adjudicated by the FOS, not the company with a vested interest)

The thread is regarding pre regulation so I can safely say 'without merit' as the only two qualifying reasons are cost and optionality which even without my evidence would be impossible to prove. You know exactly what you were implying in this instance, go to FOS even if you have no case (remember pre regulation is what I am on about) and the firm may make you a goodwill gesture. So what I say stands, I was not the only poster to pick up on it as well

Annisele

Insider101 wrote: »

I would ask them to confirm firstly the basis on which they consider that this case falls within their jurisdiction. If they say that it is because you subscribed to the MCCB and the complaint relates to optionality and cost disclosure, and you have a call recording demonstrating this, I would state that they should dismiss it without counting it on the grounds that the complaint is frivolous/vexatious ( basically, completely unjustified and made solely to inconvenience you as the receiving party). There is provision for FOS to dismiss such cases without consideration, hence no notional case fee.

I do see your point, but logically I think it's hard to "dismiss a complaint without consideration of its merits" on the grounds that "having considered the broker's evidence, I think the complaint is frivolous and vexatious because it is without merit".

If FOS does dismiss without consideration of the merits, that doesn't necessarily mean it won't charge a case fee - see this factsheet, which says:

Sometimes it may not be apparent at this stage that the complaint should be “dismissed without consideration of its
merits”. The facts may be unclear or in dispute, and we will need to look into the issues in more detail. This will mean a case fee becomes chargeable, even if we later decide that the complaint should be dismissed in this way.

Brokerwise

Annisele wrote: »

I do see your point, but logically I think it's hard to "dismiss a complaint without consideration of its merits" on the grounds that "having considered the broker's evidence, I think the complaint is frivolous and vexatious because it is without merit".

If FOS does dismiss without consideration of the merits, that doesn't necessarily mean it won't charge a case fee - see this factsheet, which says:

I see what you are saying but the cases I refer to are pre regulation. My point is why are FOS pushing their nose into something that a consumer could never prove regarding the sale, cost can not be argued because they signed and set up and paid a direct debit each month even without any evidence to the contrary I may or may not supply and optionality will never be proven on hearsay, again regardless of whether I supply a call proving it was discussed or not !. So why does the above merit a charge to me as neither point could ever be proven even if my firm had told them we would shoot them if they did not take it and to ignore your bank statements or I will kill your kids pets ????

magpiecottage

Unfortunately, FOS has jurisdiction over cases sold under The Mortgage Code if it has jurisdiction over anything else.

Because the PPI was sold as part of a mortgage advice service, and The Mortgage Code placed responsibilities on the adviser in respect of mortgages, it DOES have jurisdiction if it was sold by the same firm.

There MAY be loopholes and the case is probably defensible. However, without seeing ALL the documentation, I cannot say.