Claims management company (CMC) complaints - ask the ombudsman your question

magpiecottage

Legal_Ombudsman wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]We are working hard to provide feedback to the industry to improve working practices. We also continually make the Claims Management Regulator aware of any concerns we have if we identify that a CMC has failed to comply with the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules. [/FONT]

Unfortunately, I had a case rejected by the Legal Ombudsman which argued that the CMC cannot be held responsible for spamming by an introducer - despite the fact that the introducer was apparently not itself authorised by the MOJ and gave no contact details.

It seems that the Legal Ombudsman thinks CMCs can be allowed to hide behind the anonymity of an unauthorised third party spammer - although I believe the regulator and ICO think differently.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

Unfortunately, I had a case rejected by the Legal Ombudsman which argued that the CMC cannot be held responsible for spamming by an introducer - despite the fact that the introducer was apparently not itself authorised by the MOJ and gave no contact details.

It seems that the Legal Ombudsman thinks CMCs can be allowed to hide behind the anonymity of an unauthorised third party spammer - although I believe the regulator and ICO think differently.

The regulator certainly does:

''Where introducers are acting as agents of an authorised claims management business, their activities are covered by the principal business’s authorisation. For example, where a claims management business employs agents to market on their behalf, then the agents will not require authorisation. Where an authorised business uses agents, they will be responsible for the activities (including breaches of the Conduct Rules) of the agent.''

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/313625/Claims-management-companies-who-needs-to-be-authorised-notes.pdf

Legal_Ombudsman

magpiecottage wrote: »

Unfortunately, I had a case rejected by the Legal Ombudsman which argued that the CMC cannot be held responsible for spamming by an introducer - despite the fact that the introducer was apparently not itself authorised by the MOJ and gave no contact details.

It seems that the Legal Ombudsman thinks CMCs can be allowed to hide behind the anonymity of an unauthorised third party spammer - although I believe the regulator and ICO think differently.

[FONT=&quot]We can look at the service provided by a regulated claims management company. We cannot consider any breaches in conduct rules that fall under the Claims Management Regulator (CMR) or the Information Commissioners Office (ICO); this would be something that those organisations would need to investigate. We do make referrals to these organisations where we feel a breach in rules has been made. [/FONT]

Alpine_Star

Legal_Ombudsman wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]We cannot consider any breaches in conduct rules that fall under the Claims Management Regulator (CMR) [/FONT]

That's difficult to reconcile with what you said in post #7.

''For us (in a similar way to the Financial Ombudsman) when we look at what is ‘fair and reasonable’ we consider, but are not bound by,such factors as what decision a court might make, the regulators rules in place at the time, and what was considered to be good practice at the time of the act or omission complained about.''

magpiecottage

Legal_Ombudsman wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]We can look at the service provided by a regulated claims management company. We cannot consider any breaches in conduct rules that fall under the Claims Management Regulator (CMR)[/FONT]

Given that it is the rules of the Claims Management Regulator which, in essence, define what is or is not a good service, that would seem to make the Legal Ombudsman a rather pointless body - at least in respect of CMCs.

Legal_Ombudsman

[FONT=&quot]Magpiecottage is commenting on the details of a specific case which we are unable to discuss in this forum. All of our cases are considered based on the evidence and facts connected with that case which will differ on a case by case basis. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We do consider the regulators rules when we are looking at the service provided by a CMC. However we cannot determine whether a specific rule has been breached, only the CMR can do that. Which is why, as referenced in post #7, 'Where we consider that the Claims Management Regulator’s rules have been breached, we will also advise the regulator of this, for them to take whatever action they consider appropriate'.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There are some circumstances where we will look into complaints about unsolicited emails and telephone calls made by or on behalf of a regulated CMC. We would encourage anyone with an enquiry to contact us so that we can discuss the facts and evidence specific to your case. [/FONT]

magpiecottage

Legal_Ombudsman wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]We do consider the regulators rules when we are looking at the service provided by a CMC. However we cannot determine whether a specific rule has been breached, only the CMR can do that. Which is why, as referenced in post #7, 'Where we consider that the Claims Management Regulator’s rules have been breached, we will also advise the regulator of this, for them to take whatever action they consider appropriate'.[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Defini[FONT=&quot]tely a difference from FOS[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]- it is not unusual[FONT=&quot] f[FONT=&quot]or one of its ombudsm[FONT=&quot]en to specifically say which rule(s) of [FONT=&quot]the FCA have been breached in [FONT=&quot]a [FONT=&quot]final decision.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
If spam comes in from somebody who is not themself regulated by the MOJ on behalf of a CMC then the CMC should not be doing business with the spammer. If they ARE accepting such business then the only lawful way this could be done is that the spammer is a de facto employee of the CMC.

So, if one receives a spam which does not confirm the spammers full geographical address AND its own registration number with the Claims Regulator (so that you can make a complaint against the spammer in its own right) then the CMC it is acting for is responsible.

Alpine_Star

Legal_Ombudsman wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]Magpiecottage is commenting on the details of a specific case which we are unable to discuss in this forum. All of our cases are considered based on the evidence and facts connected with that case which will differ on a case by case basis. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We do consider the regulators rules when we are looking at the service provided by a CMC. However we cannot determine whether a specific rule has been breached, only the CMR can do that. Which is why, as referenced in post #7, 'Where we consider that the Claims Management Regulator’s rules have been breached, we will also advise the regulator of this, for them to take whatever action they consider appropriate'.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There are some circumstances where we will look into complaints about unsolicited emails and telephone calls made by or on behalf of a regulated CMC. We would encourage anyone with an enquiry to contact us so that we can discuss the facts and evidence specific to your case. [/FONT]

Ok I think I get that, thanks. In Magpiecottage's case he was complaining about a conduct issue and as a non-customer, so wouldn't be a customer service issue.

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Ok I think I get that, thanks. In Magpiecottage's case he was complaining about a conduct issue and as a non-customer, so wouldn't be a customer service issue.

But they say they will look at cases of unsolicited e-mails on behalf of a CMC - which my case was. The spammer was not regulated (or at least gave no indication of who they were or that they were regulated). The only geographical contact and CRM reference were those of the CMC I complained about.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

But they say they will look at cases of unsolicited e-mails on behalf of a CMC

Yes but only ''in some circumstances'', although it would be helpful to know what they are.