Let Down

societys_child

I think the difference is that CMCs will specifically work towards proving that PPI was mis-sold

They don't work towards anything, they just post the form that the complainant themselves fill in, and then wait . . . .

homestar55

I know, poor wording, I meant on the form it specifically focuses on questions that a claimant may not think to try and answer in their own letter. I think what I'm trying to say is that CMCs may appear to be more successful because they give a claimant an easy tick-box exercise to 'prove' PPI was mis-sold, of course if a claimant can do the same thing on their own then there's no difference but if they aren't aware of what to say to 'prove' it was mis-sold then they won't have much success (and may explain why a CMC appears to be better).

[Deleted User]

homestar55 wrote: »

I think the difference is that CMCs will specifically work towards proving that PPI was mis-sold which is why they ask questions about your financial situation and employment status at the time

They use the same FOS questionnaire form (with their letterhead, of course) that the Banks do. The CMCs don't uniquely ask such questions, the banks either require the questionnaire to be filled in or ring the complainant to ascertain this information.

If you are going to sing the praises of Claims Companies, please be sure of your facts before doing so..

homestar55 wrote: »

I think what I'm trying to say is that CMCs may appear to be more successful because they give a claimant an easy tick-box exercise to 'prove' PPI was mis-sold

They basically put a stamp on the complaint..

dunstonh

They use the same FOS questionnaire form (with their letterhead, of course) that the Banks do. The CMCs don't uniquely ask such questions, the banks either require the questionnaire to be filled in or ring the complainant to ascertain this information.

Or they use a template letter similar to the types you can download on the web and list every potential reason going, whether it applies or not. That can actually damage a complaint as it can take away credibility from the person complaining if it can be shown that they are telling lies.

homestar55

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

They use the same FOS questionnaire form (with their letterhead, of course) that the Banks do. The CMCs don't uniquely ask such questions, the banks either require the questionnaire to be filled in or ring the complainant to ascertain this information.

If you are going to sing the praises of Claims Companies, please be sure of your facts before doing so..


They basically put a stamp on the complaint..

I'm not singing their praises at all, just trying to explain why the OP and his friends might be of the impression that CMCs might be 'better' than doing it yourself - my suggestion being that the OP isn't/wasn't able to make the correct points or answer the questions in a way that would prove it was mis-sold without the guidance of a CMC filling it out and just requiring a signature.

[Deleted User]

homestar55 wrote: »

my suggestion being that the OP isn't/wasn't able to make the correct points or answer the questions in a way that would prove it was mis-sold without the guidance for a CMC.

Since CMCs don't give any such "guidance" I fail to see the point you are trying to make?

Making a complaint through a CMC involves simply filling in a version of the same questionnaire which FOS and the Banks use. This form is sent to the Bank on the customer's behalf. The Bank then determines whether it was mis-sold and awards redress accordingly. The CMC then requires as much as a third of that redress (plus VAT) in return for the "work" that they have done.


I'm sceptical about this thread, anyhow. The OP still hasn't returned to the thread to explain exactly why the Bank declined his complaint in the first place. This reason (if it is ever revealed) will doubtless cast more light on his failure than endless discussion about the use of Claims Companies.

homestar55

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Since CMCs don't give any such "guidance" I fail to see the point you are trying to make?

Making a complaint through a CMC involves simply filling in a version of the same questionnaire which FOS and the Banks use. This form is sent to the Bank on the customer's behalf. The Bank then determines whether it was mis-sold and awards redress accordingly. The CMC then requires as much as a third of that redress (plus VAT) in return for the "work" that they have done.


I'm sceptical about this thread, anyhow. The OP still hasn't returned to the thread to explain exactly why the Bank declined his complaint in the first place. This reason (if it is ever revealed) will doubtless cast more light on his failure than endless discussion about the use of Claims Companies.

The 'guidance' that I'm referring to is that after a phone conversation they'll fill out a form for you, send it to you and show you whre you need to sign. Clearly that is too much work for some people to do themselves which is why certain people may consider them to be a 'better' option.

Don't confuse me with someone who thinks this is a valuable service and it is certainly horrendously over-charged for the little 'work' they do, my point was to explain why certain people (the OP) think it might be better (laziness, ineptitude) and why the 'I failed doing it on my own but my mate succeeded through a CMC' might hold some weight with some.

I also agree that the OP seems to have suspiciously vanished and it looks like he/she may have realised that they are to blame rather than doing it themsleves being the problem. Seems like a waste of time now to try and interpret why they were thinking that doing it yourself may not be the best option.

Working_mum_on_a_mad_one

Barclays were very helpful in giving me the direct dial number for their dedicated PPI reclaim team. The team advised me of the account numbers, dates loans to and from and amounts... All I had to do was submit a letter explaining my/his reasons for being misold the policies on each. Result after 6 months and identity checks carried out - cheque sent in post.

Brokerwise

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Since CMCs don't give any such "guidance" I fail to see the point you are trying to make?

Making a complaint through a CMC involves simply filling in a version of the same questionnaire which FOS and the Banks use. This form is sent to the Bank on the customer's behalf. The Bank then determines whether it was mis-sold and awards redress accordingly. The CMC then requires as much as a third of that redress (plus VAT) in return for the "work" that they have done.


I'm sceptical about this thread, anyhow. The OP still hasn't returned to the thread to explain exactly why the Bank declined his complaint in the first place. This reason (if it is ever revealed) will doubtless cast more light on his failure than endless discussion about the use of Claims Companies.

I think the OP probably had 'hidden PPI' and was told he had to have it but has no evidence other than his word. If he had gone to a CMC (who do a hard job but work tirelessly to put right what the banks did wrong) they would have identified he was on the 'PPI database' and upon hearing this the institution who rejected his compliant would upheld it instantly and paid out 'compensation' regardless of whether ppi was taken or not. . The CMCwould have rejected this offer at first and they would then have won back seven times the original offer that the institution tried to sneakily avoid paying. The OP would now have a extension and a well deserved holiday

societys_child

:T
:beer:

Brokerwise - nicely summed up . . .

:rotfl: