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.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Which PPI reclaims company
Comments
-
addedvaluebob wrote: »That will be the same Legal Ombudsman that is due to commence regulation next January and oversees complaints about lawyers who still run a load of the claims companies.
It was originally intended to commence jurisdiction (not regulation, that is what the MOJ does) in mid 2012. I won't be holding my breath...
As for CMCs, they are not run by lawyers at all, just a bunch of small time crooks who look to pretend they are lawyers (I've run across plenty who have actually told customers that) by issuing standard letters with silly titles like "John Smith v XYZ bank". They are unqualified laymen who can do no more than the customer can.0 -
addedvaluebob wrote: »I think the degeneration into blah, blah blah completely ignores the MoJ rules that applies to CMC's.
Companies must make it clear in their T & C's as a minimum that there is a free advice service. You don't like them, that is fine but unless you can justify the quote 'no good companies' it is still just one persons opinion
Ok so banks should explain all of the key conditions and exclusions fully otherwise they are guilty of misselling but CMCs can bury stuff in the small print? Nice...0 -
It would be interesting if you actually posted a list of companies you believed were good.
Me, I can't name one.
Please do see this as a challenge to back up your argument.
My premis stands. There are no good companies.
Posting names of companies is not allowed, that is part of the problem and goes back to the original posters question. The constant naysaying of all claims companies are crooks and rubbish does nothing to help people who genuinely need or want to use a third party to handle it for them.
As for the 'small print' argument, they have to put it in a monetary example as well as quoting the percentage and telling the complainant there is a free alternative either with the bank or FOS.
If you believe that every claims company ignores this rule then report them all to the MoJ0 -
It is of course permissible to mention company names on this forum. It is advertising which is not allowed. If someone here has had a particularly wonderful experience paying a claims company a large proportion of their redress, then MSE would not take a dim view of that someone posting their experience (once) and naming the company concerned.
In every newspaper and on daytime television, there are numerous adverts for claims companies and I find it rather bizarre that anyone would want to "redress the balance" of this openly anti-CMC forum. CMCs don't need anyone promoting them for free, some of them have spent £millions ensuring that their "services" are well known.
As for "reporting" all CMCs to their regulator, I think a far more effective tactic is to warn potential customers of the needless expense incurred by using a claims company. Rather like the majority of posters on this forum do already, in fact.0 -
addedvaluebob wrote: »
As for the 'small print' argument, they have to put it in a monetary example as well as quoting the percentage and telling the complainant there is a free alternative either with the bank or FOS.
If you believe that every claims company ignores this rule then report them all to the MoJ
The Claims Guys (saw the Ts & Cs when helping another poster) don't
http://www.theclaimsguys.co.uk/downloads/TOE_2014_09_18.pdf
If TCG is successful in obtaining Compensation then you owe TCG 30% of the Compensation + VAT.
This means for example, if the Company succeeds in obtaining Compensation of £1,000, the Fee would be £300.00 + VAT = £360.00. You would receive £640.00.
If the Company succeeds in obtaining Compensation of £15,000, the Fee would be £4,500 + VAT = £5,400. You would receive £9,600.
If Compensation of £1,000 is received but £500 is used by the Company to reduce your outstanding loan balance the Fee
would be £300 plus VAT, therefore You would receive £140 (£500 less our fee of £360).
VAT is charged at the prevailing statutory rate. Should the rate change this will result in a possible increase or decrease in the Fee.
They mention the free service hidden away
5. You Acknowledge and Agree:
a. That You are aware that You could complain directly to the Company at no cost, with the ability to take matters further with the Financial Ombudsman Service or the Small Claims Court yet have chosen to pursue Your Claim via TCG
I like that wording, it almost reads "yet you are still daft enough to use us and throw away 1/3 of your refund"Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
addedvaluebob wrote: »Posting names of companies is not allowed, that is part of the problem and goes back to the original posters question.
It is allowed.
So... I am waiting.......Non me fac calcitrare tuum culi0 -
Your original point wasThere are no good companies.
If there were, they would point out you can do it yourself for nothing.
Nasqueron clearly found an example of a company that explicitly spells out the fees and tells customer they can do it themselves. As for the 'hidden away comment' this is on the same page as the fees so I am not sure how 'hidden' this is
Can I be bothered to trawl the web and post links to every company that complies with MoJ rules..... er, no.
If you still think that every claims company fails to meet the MoJ rules then by all means feel free to take your campaign to the MoJ0 -
They didn't spell it out when they unlawfully called my TPS registered number and tried to get me to sign up.addedvaluebob wrote: »Nasqueron clearly found an example of a company that explicitly spells out the fees and tells customer they can do it themselves. As for the 'hidden away comment' this is on the same page as the fees so I am not sure how 'hidden' this is
That might work if the regulator actually did anything about it.addedvaluebob wrote: »If you still think that every claims company fails to meet the MoJ rules then by all means feel free to take your campaign to the MoJ
Still, the Legal Ombudsman route should open before long.0 -
Since the MOJ rules for Claims Companies only barely protect the customer (and still allow exorbitant fees to be charged for a task that the customer can easily do alone and for free), it's hardly a recommendation to simply say that they abide by the regulatory rules!
It's not even true to say that some vulnerable people "need" the services of a claims company. Anyone who struggles with literacy or is not confident making a complaint alone can go to the Citizen's Advice Bureau or even the local library for free assistance.0 -
It is 10.02 and this morning I have already had two PPI pre-recorded messages sent to my TPS registered phone number.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards