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!
A case handler's view of CMCs
ppicasehandler
Posts: 1 Newbie
I decide whether to uphold or reject PPI claims. Obviously I won't reveal more than that. I've lurked around this forum for a while, mostly out of curiosity.
I've been doing PPI for a fair while. I cannot recall a single case where a Claims Management Company has made any difference to the outcome. . I've done hundreds of cases. We have our own investigation process which we follow. We consider all the possible reasons that we might uphold a complaint.
Most of the points CMCs raise are irrelevant (some of them are actually reasons to reject a complaint), and what few relevant point they raise would have been considered anyway.
Some CMCs are infamous. They send complaints to the wrong place. They commit regular data protection breaches. They litter their complaint letters and questionnaires with random product names, account numbers, contradictory information and meaningless sentences.
Having said that, it's CMCs that get people to complain, and that's what keeps me and lot of people in work.
I've been doing PPI for a fair while. I cannot recall a single case where a Claims Management Company has made any difference to the outcome. . I've done hundreds of cases. We have our own investigation process which we follow. We consider all the possible reasons that we might uphold a complaint.
Most of the points CMCs raise are irrelevant (some of them are actually reasons to reject a complaint), and what few relevant point they raise would have been considered anyway.
Some CMCs are infamous. They send complaints to the wrong place. They commit regular data protection breaches. They litter their complaint letters and questionnaires with random product names, account numbers, contradictory information and meaningless sentences.
Having said that, it's CMCs that get people to complain, and that's what keeps me and lot of people in work.
0
Comments
-
Can I ask why you try and make complaints that are clearly outside your jurisdiction into cases then reject them the moment they become a case for the same reason given to you that they were our of your jurisdiction in the first placeppicasehandler wrote: »I decide whether to uphold or reject PPI claims. Obviously I won't reveal more than that. I've lurked around this forum for a while, mostly out of curiosity.
I've been doing PPI for a fair while. I cannot recall a single case where a Claims Management Company has made any difference to the outcome. . I've done hundreds of cases. We have our own investigation process which we follow. We consider all the possible reasons that we might uphold a complaint.
Most of the points CMCs raise are irrelevant (some of them are actually reasons to reject a complaint), and what few relevant point they raise would have been considered anyway.
Some CMCs are infamous. They send complaints to the wrong place. They commit regular data protection breaches. They litter their complaint letters and questionnaires with random product names, account numbers, contradictory information and meaningless sentences.
Having said that, it's CMCs that get people to complain, and that's what keeps me and lot of people in work.0 -
ppicasehandler wrote: »I decide whether to uphold or reject PPI claims. Obviously I won't reveal more than that. I've lurked around this forum for a while, mostly out of curiosity.
I've been doing PPI for a fair while. I cannot recall a single case where a Claims Management Company has made any difference to the outcome. . I've done hundreds of cases. We have our own investigation process which we follow. We consider all the possible reasons that we might uphold a complaint.
Most of the points CMCs raise are irrelevant (some of them are actually reasons to reject a complaint), and what few relevant point they raise would have been considered anyway.
Some CMCs are infamous. They send complaints to the wrong place. They commit regular data protection breaches. They litter their complaint letters and questionnaires with random product names, account numbers, contradictory information and meaningless sentences.
Having said that, it's CMCs that get people to complain, and that's what keeps me and lot of people in work.
Amen to (pretty much) all that.0 -
Brokerwise wrote: »Can I ask why you try and make complaints that are clearly outside your jurisdiction into cases then reject them the moment they become a case for the same reason given to you that they were our of your jurisdiction in the first place
I think the OP works for a lender, not the FOS.0 -
I am very happy for anyone to be in employment but can you please tell me the point of this thread.
In particular
'I cannot recall a single case where a Claims Management Company has made any difference to the outcome'.
How would you know because you didn't know anything about the complainants knowledge prior to them discussing this with a CMC or a bloke down the pub. I don't doubt your belief but the logic seems slightly skewed.0 -
I see the CMC apologist is alive and well.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
-
ppicasehandler wrote: »I decide whether to uphold or reject PPI claims. Obviously I won't reveal more than that. I've lurked around this forum for a while, mostly out of curiosity.
I've been doing PPI for a fair while. I cannot recall a single case where a Claims Management Company has made any difference to the outcome. . I've done hundreds of cases. We have our own investigation process which we follow. We consider all the possible reasons that we might uphold a complaint.
Most of the points CMCs raise are irrelevant (some of them are actually reasons to reject a complaint), and what few relevant point they raise would have been considered anyway.
Some CMCs are infamous. They send complaints to the wrong place. They commit regular data protection breaches. They litter their complaint letters and questionnaires with random product names, account numbers, contradictory information and meaningless sentences.
Having said that, it's CMCs that get people to complain, and that's what keeps me and lot of people in work.
No !!!! Sherlock !0 -
I see the apologist for the financial services industry is still out there.
My question is to the OP. How would he or she know anything about the complainants circumstances prior to the complaint being written.
Perhaps it would be time for this forum to ask all the people who represent companies and have an interest in turning down complaints to
name the companies they work for and represent, because there seem to be more of them than genuine posters offering advice and support0 -
Why would complainants circumstances be needed for a PPI complaint ?0
-
CMCs are a known "scam" as they do nothing you cannot do yourself and take a huge chunk of refund. A lot different to IFA helping people who want to avoid hard sales in their local bank lol
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 -
In fact, you have to do it yourself anyway. They just post it on.CMCs are a known "scam" as they do nothing you cannot do yourself
This week I was looking at a case (not PPI) where a CMC told me the complainant had no previous investment experience. The records showed they already had two different endowment policies, an investment bond and £10,000 of trainers they had decided to splash out on to flog in the local market.
The CMC also told me they were unwilling to take any financial risk.
They told me that their client did not want or need life cover - but the Fact Find said they wanted to invest for their children and they did want life cover.
The CMC told me to communicate only with them. I know why. When I telephoned their client and asked them what the CMC had asked about their aims and circumstances at the time they purchased, I was told the CMC had not made any enquiries at all. They had simply made up complaints with total disregard to their accuracy.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards