We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
MSE News: Regulator rejects our calls to reopen CPP redress scheme

Former_MSE_Helen
Posts: 2,382 Forumite
The FCA has disappointingly rejected MoneySavingExpert.com's calls to re-open the CPP redress scheme...
Read the full story:
Regulator rejects our calls to reopen CPP redress scheme

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.
Regulator rejects our calls to reopen CPP redress scheme

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.
0
Comments
-
I can't say I'm surprised.0
-
"But some of the people mis-sold to are by definition confused about these things. So a letter headed 'CPP' that looked and felt very similar to a PPI spam letter was always doomed to fail.
If you can'r see the difference between the abbreviations CPP and PPI you are either mentally disabled(In which case there needs to be a guardian appointed to look after your financial affairs) or just plain stupid.0 -
Mishomeister wrote: »If you can'r see the difference between the abbreviations CPP and PPI you are either mentally disabled(In which case there needs to be a guardian appointed to look after your financial affairs) or just plain stupid.
It is a sad fact that millions of vulnerable people struggle with their financial affairs because they DO have learning disabilities and/or mental health problems; there is simply no procedure to allocate guardians to everybody concerned, and no sufficient supply of competent people to act as guardians even if there was.
What's needed is for the courts to start ruling contracts (esp. credit agreements) void where it is clear that a party was not capable of fully understanding what they were signing. That's the only thing that will force companies to seriously consider this issue….0 -
Does the (previous) existence of the scheme prevent anybody taking direct legal action against CPP to recover payments? Unless there was specific legislation to this effect, I can't see how the fact there was once a compensation scheme removes the right of any individual to seek redress through the courts….?!0
-
Does the (previous) existence of the scheme prevent anybody taking direct legal action against CPP to recover payments?
If court action was a feasible alternative, then there would be far more people attempting it and there would be advice and encouragement from this website and others.0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »The problem is that CPP (and PPI) mis-selling is not a legal issue but a regulatory one. Courts would require compelling evidence of wrong-doing in order to be convinced.
You may be right. But the CAB seem to think that mis-selling is against the law and the
Money Advice Service says that if you're not happy with an ombudsman's decision you can go to court as a last resort. And I don't see how they could deny mis-selling in court, given they've already effectively admitted it.If court action was a feasible alternative, then there would be far more people attempting it and there would be advice and encouragement from this website and others.
Since the FCA is the first port of call, there was no reason for anybody to take legal action while it was siding with consumers. Now they've ceased to do so, I suspect somebody will test this in court….0 -
I don't see how they could deny mis-selling in court, given they've already effectively admitted it.
Any litigant would require comprehensive evidence of wrong-doing to stand any chance in court.
I sincerely doubt there will be many who will go to court when they didn't bother to take advantage of the Refund Scheme. In addition, CPP payments were nominal amounts and this makes the court option expensive when there is likely to be relatively little return.
I never at any time said that court was not an option, however.
Feel free to be a test case.0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »Any litigant would require comprehensive evidence of wrong-doing to stand any chance in court.
Don't see why that would be. Surely the burden of proof in a civil case is balance of probabilities: they'd just have to show it was more likely than not that the cover was mis-sold.Feel free to be a test case.
Not in a position to, as it happens. My only experience with CPP was in about 2005, when HSBC signed me up even though I'd explicitly refused cover, then told me they couldn't do anything about it and I'd have to take it up with CPP if I wanted a refund. I ditched not only CPP but HSBC as well, and have had nothing to do with either since, but I'm afraid it gives me a vengeful interest in seeing them taken to the cleaners….0 -
My wife claimed.
I posted in the previous thread, the letters were clear and explained exactly what to do if you felt you had been mis-sold a product. Refunds were process very quickly in her case.
Again this is another MSE non story if someone can't take 5 minutes out to read a letter and fill in a form and place in the post using a pre-paid envelope.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 348.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.3K Spending & Discounts
- 240.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 617K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.6K Life & Family
- 253.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards