A case handler's view of CMCs

Insider101

magpiecottage wrote: »

In fact, you have to do it yourself anyway. They just post it on.

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.

Nothing new there then. I would say this is the case with about 90% of CMC PPI complaints. I hope your client gets this in writing from the customer and then takes the CMC to court for wasting their time!!!

Another favourite party trick is telling the customer not to speak to the complaint handler when they call because "they may jeopardise their claim". In other words expose the lies.

magpiecottage

Insider101 wrote: »

Another favourite party trick is telling the customer not to speak to the complaint handler when they call because "they may jeopardise their claim". In other words expose the lies.

Indeed.

I have now taken to actually writing direct to the customer, telling them the what CMC has said in their name and inviting them to correct it. I ought to update it and tell them how to complain to the CMC and the Legal Ombudsman if it is untrue.

roonaldo

addedvaluebob wrote: »

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.

Ok perhaps a pointless post, but the OP is correct. Scamming CMC's have no inpact on a complaint.

Whats the customer's knowledge got to do with it?

magpiecottage

roonaldo wrote: »

Ok perhaps a pointless post, but the OP is correct. Scamming CMC's have no inpact on a complaint.

Actually, it's not entirely correct.

In the last week I encountered a case where statements by a CMC were so obviously untrue that it immediately called the reliability of everything else the complainant supposedly said into question.

And when I ignored the CMC's demand that I go through them and spoke direct to the complainant, it turned out they had simply said it without asking their client in the first place.

FOS has reported similar issues with CMCs.

If you go direct, you can be sure your complaint is honestly presented. If you pay a CMC to do it then you can't.

Like the OP says, though, no CMC has put a case that I have investigated and upheld that I would not have upheld anyway - but I am not sure that there are some where, but for the false evidence of the CMC, I might have found sufficiently credible to uphold them.

Annisele

magpiecottage wrote: »

In the last week I encountered a case where statements by a CMC were so obviously untrue that it immediately called the reliability of everything else the complainant supposedly said into question.

Yep, I've seen that too. My favourite so far was a complaint about shares - apparently the complainant wasn't told that the value of shares could go down as well as up, and his entire portfolio was too high risk for him because he's very cautious.

My problem with that was that the complainant held (and still holds) a fairly senior position in an investment firm. Given his job title, qualifications and experience, I was pretty certain he knew perfectly well that shares are volatile. His other investments (bought without advice, before my employer came along) suggested he wasn't a cautious investor at all. I thought that both his current employer and the FCA would be rather surprised to learn the great long list of things the CMC said he didn't understand.

When I rang him up, it turned out he was complaining about one specific share recommendation, and one specific thing he alleges the adviser lied to him about - and not, as the CMC said, about everything my employer had ever sold him over a 10 year period.

I don't know what happened between him and the CMC, but I do know he told me he was withdrawing permission for me to speak to the CMC!

dunstonh

In cases where a balance of probability decision has to be made, then these tend to look at the credibility of the two sides. If the one using the CMC has made loads of allegations that have been shown to be incorrect, then the credibility of that person is shot.

magpiecottage

Annisele wrote: »

My problem with that was that the complainant held (and still holds) a fairly senior position in an investment firm.

Fraudulent
Complaint
Advocacy

Annisele

I don't think you're accusing me of anything, but just to be clear - I am NOT advocating fraudulent complaints.

In that particular case I don't think the complainant was doing anything fraudulent either (though I can't be certain what went on between him and the CMC). If I had to put money on it I'd go with sheer incompetence; nobody bothered to work out what the guy was actually complaining about and so the CMC just sent a standard template letter.

magpiecottage

No - not suggesting you are fraudulent at all.

However, the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2014 require a firm to check a complainant's story before presenting a complaint.

If they simply fabricate a complaint when they know if is, or may be, untrue of misleading, is dishonest and, according to section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, is Fraud.

Yet the FCA allows both CMCs and the public at large to do it with impunity.

I am not talking about honest mistakes and I do not hold with the view that it is incompetence. The CMCs hold themselves out as professionals. The fact that, as you say, they are incompetent is simply a further demonstration of their dishonesty.

roonaldo

magpiecottage wrote: »

Actually, it's not entirely correct.

In the last week I encountered a case where statements by a CMC were so obviously untrue that it immediately called the reliability of everything else the complainant supposedly said into question.

And when I ignored the CMC's demand that I go through them and spoke direct to the complainant, it turned out they had simply said it without asking their client in the first place.

FOS has reported similar issues with CMCs.

If you go direct, you can be sure your complaint is honestly presented. If you pay a CMC to do it then you can't.

Like the OP says, though, no CMC has put a case that I have investigated and upheld that I would not have upheld anyway - but I am not sure that there are some where, but for the false evidence of the CMC, I might have found sufficiently credible to uphold them.

When I said no impact, I meant in a positive way/for the benefit of a customer! Never seen one.