Commitments Protection Ltd

Brokerwise

Chris1892 wrote: »

I have had enough of these derogatory post removed from this site already. The letter has the phone number for Commitments Protection and the information in the letter is 100% fact not fiction or fishing for claims. If the know it alls had the full information i am sure they will agree, IF they genuinely work in the Financial Services. We are FCA and MOJ Registered both numbers are on the letter. We have been since 2002. We administered thousands of policies for client through various Mortgage brokers all over the UK and in 2010 the FCA deemed that the MORTGAGE BROKERS (NOT COMMITMENTS) miss-sold these policies and we are assisting our clients claim their money back. My office number is 01480 457005 my name is Chris if anybody doubts my credentials or feels the way we operate is in breach of any rules or regulations please feel free to contact me and i will give you the relevant FCA and MOJ numbers and you can discuss it with them.

I Look forward to hearing from all the people hiding behind computer screens.

Pish, how the hell can you possibly know if a mis sale occurred, especially with regard to MPPI. Keep touting for business though, eh

Brokerwise

Chris1892 wrote: »

Send me your email address and i will send you a copy of a letter less the details that goes out to our clients. The letter is MOJ approved.

Do not need to, seen loads of them. Remember the Meatloaf song, "you put the words right into my mouth" Nice bit of work mailing failed mortgage businesses client though - how did you come across the data ?

dunstonh

We are FCA and MOJ Registered both numbers are on the letter. We have been since 2002.

MOJ registration didnt exist in 2002 and the FSA register says they were regulated from 2005. Why dont you just post the MOJ number on this site?

There is no company called Commitments Protection Ltd on the MOJ register (even did a search on commitments only and the MOJ site said no business found.

in 2010 the FCA deemed that the MORTGAGE BROKERS (NOT COMMITMENTS) miss-sold these policies

Ignoring the fact the FCA did not exist in 2010 and you may have meant the FSA, the response is no they havent. The FSA made no such statement that said the mortgage brokers mis-sold these policies. No doubt some did and a few firms were fined in that period but nothing from the FSA to have the broadbrush you claim. Please provide evidence to support your wild allegations.

The FSA report on mortgage PPI said:
2.1 From our visits, the sale of regular premium PPI with prime mortgages stands
out as different from the other sectors. In general, we found that compliance
tended to be better in this sector compared to the other sectors. From this, we
have concluded that PPI selling practices in this sector do not represent a high
risk to our regulatory objectives.

There was concern over sales linked to sub prime mortgages and we know that single premium MPPI is considered poor advice in most cases.

The letter is MOJ approved.

No it isnt. The MOJ do not approve letters.

saver861

Chris1892 wrote: »

I Look forward to hearing from all the people hiding behind computer screens.

I can't say I'm terribly convinced by your approach any more than I would at the CEO of Barclays etc coming on these boards to defend their position.

I rather expect such individuals to be busy ensuring their respsective companies are endeavouring to provide appropriate products and services for their customers.

[Deleted User]

It's tea time, Friday evening. Moderators clearly on their way home or to the 'pub.

Don't feed the troll, folks (and have a good weekend )

Tomcat

Lol, I wasn't expecting a reply never mind world war 3. So the short answer to my question is?...

Can I persue this?.. is this a legitimate claim or have I been fed a pack of lies?.

saver861

Tomcat wrote: »

Lol, I wasn't expecting a reply never mind world war 3. So the short answer to my question is?...

Can I persue this?.. is this a legitimate claim or have I been fed a pack of lies?.

I'm certainly not in a position to advise one way or the other, not least not knowing the detail of the case.

However, if it involves paying an up front fee - if it were me I'd rip it up ... then I'd bin it.

After that, if I had reason to believe I had a reasonable valid claim, I would pursue it myself and find all the relevant info for zero up front cost.

After all that, then I'd decide if I wanted to pursue a claim.

But that's just me of course ......

[Deleted User]

Tomcat wrote: »

So the short answer to my question is?...

Don't pay anything to any company demanding an upfront fee. If you think you have a valid PPI complaint follow the simple and free steps outlined here;
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/ppi-loan-insurance?_ga=1.136250803.340047350.1365283676

addedvaluebob

Basically, this lot buy up the old books of business from brokers and advisers who leave the business/ retire. If they were the administrators (which is questionable) then there is a breach of DPA.

By having the base details it looks like they have information to make a claim against the old broker using the FSCS, but charging an up front fee just means they don't know what they are doing and want to bleed the money up front because they know there will be a lot of cases that are not mis-sold.

If the company no longer exists then send your complaint to the FSCS and report them to the MOJ for misleading advertising

magpiecottage

Commitments Protection Limited IS authorised and regulated by the FCA - and was authorised by the old FSA from when general insurance first became regulated in 2005 until last year when the FCA took over.

However, if you put its name into the Claims Regulator's register, it draws a blank.

The FCA register also gives no details of anybody with any name that could be shortened to Chris having any regulated function.

So chris1892 seems to be a troll.

It also means, though, that they cannot lawfully pursue the claim at all.

I would suggest the matter be reported to the Claims Regulator and also to the FCA because it calls into question whether the firm is fit and proper.