Northern Rock MPPI

saver861

magpiecottage wrote: »

£850 for PPI cases.

I do understand that the organisation has a number of free complaints before the fees kick in? I don't have knowledge of the premise behind the policy but presumably there must be some logic to the arrangement. Nor do I concur that blatant unfounded customer complaints should be allowed through without some cost to the customer.

magpiecottage wrote: »

The algorithm, if it exists, is flawed, though, because it does not take distinguish between PPI on secured and unsecured loans.

If somebody from Northern Rock (or Barclays) is reading this, it might be worth tweaking it.

Organisations such as Barclays should have sufficient quality management procedures in place to identify such anomalies and failings. If they are loose on this then no doubt so for other areas of the business. If they are depending on posts on public forums .... well ....

[Deleted User]

saver861 wrote: »

Nor do I concur that blatant unfounded customer complaints should be allowed through without some cost to the customer.

The Ombudsman service will remain free to all customers. The way FOS is financed is not going to change and isn't under any review. The PPI mis-selling scandal will not last forever and financial institutions have already put aside £billions to pay for it. These costs include paying for FOS.

roonaldo

saver861 wrote: »

I do understand that the organisation has a number of free complaints before the fees kick in? I don't have knowledge of the premise behind the policy but presumably there must be some logic to the arrangement.

It's the first 25 that have the fee waived, it would be to protect the small businesses who would be financially crippled by this.

dunstonh

roonaldo wrote: »

It's the first 25 that have the fee waived, it would be to protect the small businesses who would be financially crippled by this.

However, many smaller advice firms use compliance companies and it is the compliance company that gets the 25 cases. Not the individual member firms.

I think the 25 cases limit is fair but it should be applied perhaps to FCA registrations rather than principle. It would not change anything for the banks but for smaller companies, it would reduce the cost. As it stands, one dodgy firm could eat up all 25 cases and another firm with no relation to the first one other than using the same compliance company could get their first complaint in 20 years and gets hit with the FOS charge as they are the 26th complaint with that compliance company.

katiepyke

magpiecottage wrote: »

Oh - not a real engineer then.

I'm a software engineer as well and find this remark pretty offensive

magpiecottage wrote: »

The algorithm, if it exists, is flawed, though, because it does not take distinguish between PPI on secured and unsecured loans.

So here you're commenting that something may or may not exist and then tell us it's flawed in the way it works. I for one would like to know where you got this piece of information from.
If an algorithm does exist how do you know what it does and doesn't distinguish from, I'm guessing you don't, and if it doesn't exist then it can't be flawed as there can't be a flaw in nothing.

And congratulations to overhang on your success

magpiecottage

katiepyke wrote: »

I'm a software engineer as well and find this remark pretty offensive

Everybody likes to be called an engineer:

Domestic engineer = housewife
Refuse disposal engineer = dustman
Horizontal support engineer = shelf
Software engineer = computer programmer.

Engineers are of three types - Civil, as distinct from Military, and and Mechanical.

Civil and Mechanical have chartered institutions, military engineers have Royal patronage.

Nothing wrong with being any of the above - but not real engineering.

So here you're commenting that something may or may not exist and then tell us it's flawed in the way it works. I for one would like to know where you got this piece of information from.
If an algorithm does exist how do you know what it does and doesn't distinguish from, I'm guessing you don't, and if it doesn't exist then it can't be flawed as there can't be a flaw in nothing.

I made a speculative hypothesis. I made clear that it was that and that I had no evidence to support it.

That is how real science works.

saver861 wrote: »

I do understand that the organisation has a number of free complaints before the fees kick in? I don't have knowledge of the premise behind the policy but presumably there must be some logic to the arrangement. Nor do I concur that blatant unfounded customer complaints should be allowed through without some cost to the customer.

Although we do not see eye to eye on everything, I think we have common ground here.

FOS will say most firms do not reach the 25 minimum. This is because it lumps all those small businesses in together as one.

This approach is unclear, unfair and misleading.

I think that consumers making unfounded complaints should be charged not only a fee by FOS but for the expense and time incurred by their "victim" - just as I think if a firm gets it wrong they should meet the cost of putting things right.

Organisations such as Barclays should have sufficient quality management procedures in place to identify such anomalies and failings. If they are loose on this then no doubt so for other areas of the business. If they are depending on posts on public forums .... well ....

Oh - absolutely.

But then if they had proper QC in the first place they would never have got into this mess.

Nasqueron

overhang wrote: »

Nasqueron I would suspect that many of the cases you refer to were instigated by claims management companies in a speculative manner. This is an example of one entity involved in the financial sector trying to deceive another, and the prospective client. I have received calls myself from these companies claiming they can get thousands in compensation for me when I know the calls are speculative because I have kept almost all statements and documents since 1997 and know that I only had PPI on my mortgage.

CMCs are acting on behalf of a client who is willingly going along with fraud - putting in a claim saying you had PPI and it was hard sold, undue pressure etc without even any evidence to say you had it is bad - neither party is being prosecuted for fraud even though that is what they are doing. CMCs are deceiving customers (e.g. the banned adverts suggesting they were more likely to win the case or the way they don't tell you that the free process is equally likely to succeed or the way they suggest they actually do any work) as well as financial institutions. The point I am making is that the PPI industry has got an awful lot of greedy chancers who are taking money from the banks by getting lucky on auto-payouts, regardless of merit, hitting honest customers like myself, who has never had PPI or any form of bank charges, loans etc by reducing the value of my pension, removing account benefits to save money etc and there is still the chance of seeing an end to free banking as a result of the billions paid out - how many were actually mis-sold, how many jumped on the bandwagon knowing full well what they signed up to, how many just plain lied to get a payout - some of the PPI stuff is as bad as ambulance chasers putting in complaints about whiplash from 10mph shunts

overhang

Magpie, the device you are posting these insults on was developed using the skills of Materials Engineers, Electrical Engineers, Software Engineers, Chemical Engineers and Manufacturing Engineers amongst others. Being as you don't seem to respect any of these types you should probably turn the device off.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)