Stanton Fisher PPI claim / ex bankrupt

Mrstella1971

Hi All

Just after some advice if I may.

10 years ago I was made bankrupt and discharged a year later, Stanton Fisher had been cold calling me about ppi claims and I finally relented and said go ahead without looking to much into it as in my head I had never taken out ppi in the past.

Well it seems that I did take it out twice, both times with one of the creditors involved in the bankruptcy.

Now the thing is when I spoke with SF I told them about my bankruptcy and they said it was no problem and that I should just claim anyway. Today I received an offer letter for one of the claims and in it it said if I was previously bankrupt/iva etc I would not receive any compensation and that it would go to the insolvency services etc which is fair enough. My issue is that SF will still want the 33% charge for recovering the monies leaving me out of pocket.

1) Do I have a case against SF to not pay the fees as if I had known at the outset I would not have done it.

2) if I don't return the compensation agreement letter will that mean I have not got a completed claim and as such don't owe the fees

3) there is a 2nd case being looked at which is substantially larger than the first claim if I call RBS and instruct them to cease the investigation will they inform SF and if they do will I be liable for charges.

4) the ppi/loans were all at a previous address to the bankruptcy address will the bank put 2&2 together or will they just pay out.

Thanks for any input.

dunstonh

Now the thing is when I spoke with SF I told them about my bankruptcy and they said it was no problem and that I should just claim anyway.

The rules on pre bankruptcy are very clear and have been published for many years. A CMC should know this and should tell you the correct information. They didnt in your case.

1) Do I have a case against SF to not pay the fees as if I had known at the outset I would not have done it.

Yes you do.

2) if I don't return the compensation agreement letter will that mean I have not got a completed claim and as such don't owe the fees

It makes no difference. If the CMC were entitled to their cut (which they are not) they could still bill you against this as you would be intentionally blocking it. But its a non issue here.

3) there is a 2nd case being looked at which is substantially larger than the first claim if I call RBS and instruct them to cease the investigation will they inform SF and if they do will I be liable for charges.

Let RBS complete it. Your creditors that lost money will receive some now and you wont have to pay SF. SF may badger you and even threaten you but if that happens, you put in a formal complaint stating that they knew you were a discharged bankrupt and that you would not receive the money but still told you to proceed and by doing that, misled you into using their services. That is in effect fraud on their part and if they continue to pursue you, you will take your case to the legal ombudsman.

[Deleted User]

Mrstella1971 wrote: »

when I spoke with SF I told them about my bankruptcy and they said it was no problem and that I should just claim anyway.

Do you have it writing that you informed the CMC of your bankruptcy? That's the only sticking point I could see. If there is no documentary evidence of you telling Stanton Fisher that you were bankrupt, they could argue that you owe them a fee (not 33% of the redress) for wasting their time...

magpiecottage

You can complain by e-mail to info@stantonfisher.co.uk

If you do, send a copy to consumer@claimsregulation.gov.uk

I do not think you need worry too much about having written confirmation that you told them of the bankruptcy at outset. They hold themselves out as experts so the onus was on them to make clear what would happen if you had been, not for you to recognise the significance.

The claims regulator (and presumably the Legal Ombudsman) generally takes a dim view of failure of a CMC to do this.

[Deleted User]

magpiecottage wrote: »

I do not think you need worry too much about having written confirmation that you told them of the bankruptcy at outset. They hold themselves out as experts so the onus was on them to make clear what would happen if you had been, not for you to recognise the significance.

Nevertheless, if the OP did not make it clear that he was bankrupt then the Claims Company can't really be held responsible for going ahead with the complaint. Not that I'm siding with the CMC, of course.

It's doubtful whether the Ombudsman would uphold a complaint that a Stanton Fisher employee told the OP to complain anyway. That's just hearsay, as well you know, but the OP obviously won't have to pay the CMC's full fees.

dunstonh

http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/complaints-in-focus-CMCs-final.pdf

see page 6.

[Deleted User]

Clearly if the Ombudsman has already ruled about the wording of CMC questions about bankruptcy, then Stanton Fisher should have already complied. However, that doesn't change my points about the OP claiming he was told to complain regardless of being bankrupt.....

Mrstella1971

Hi all

Sorry for the delay in replying, I made a complaint to Stanton Fisher and they reviewed the telephone calls and have confirmed that my file will be closed, no charges made, staff being retrained etc etc


Thanks for all your help

dunstonh

Good result and thanks for the update.