Complaint management companies - what authority do they need to represent you?

-taff

No fee cap before April, they were more in the region of 30 to 40% then

BooJewels

Thanks taff - that was the figure I had in mind too - I was surprised when I read it was now capped at 20%. So if the fee needs paying, which I'm suspecting that it will, it's likely to be a good chunk, as it is almost certainly pre-April - maybe by some time.

If I'd known that he actually had any PPI, I would have insisted that I look at it myself.

I'm thinking it was probably this credit card, it's the only form of 'borrowing' I suspect he's had in recent years - and he's been retired for almost 40 years, so it probably wouldn't have been appropriate.

BooJewels

Just to update this thread. I did get a bill from a CMC the following day and within a week I'd had a further 2 payment reminders and a phone call to the relatives phone when I happened to be there (he's no longer there, he's in care, I'm managing his home), asking where their payment was. Somewhat enthusiastic.

I had initially emailed, explaining the situation and they'd be dealing with me now under the terms of the LPA. The message was read within minutes, but no further response. I explained this when I took the phone call a few days later. They explained that I'd need to write, as an email was insufficient. So I have done so with the LPA, explaining that I want to see the signed agreement, the date it was signed and details of what measures they'd taken under the CMCOB rules in respect of vulnerable customers.

I also registered the LPA with the financial institution that made the payout itself and now that has cleared, have spoken to them in more depth today.

The agreement was seemingly signed on a date when he was most certainly very vulnerable (between 2 medical events that could be verified) and when I was opening his post - so I can't explain why he seems to have decided to open some items of post and yet left most where it landed, chosen to sign an agreement when he's been asked not to sign anything without someone else with him to check it through with him and to manage to destroy all evidence of it even existing. This in itself, is totally out of character for the person concerned and the situation at the time.

The actual complaint itself was an auto payout for an account from 1985 where the financial company were aware they'd made procedural errors and had flagged all such accounts to be settled without investigation - therefore they hadn't had reason to ring their customer for more information - I suspect most of the redress will therefore be interest. They weren't even sent a questionnaire, just his name, address and DOB in a letter, along with the authorisation he'd signed.

The financial institution aren't very happy with the events I've described and are sending me copies of everything, as they'd quite like me to pursue the matter and will support me if I do, as they feel the COB rules in respect of procedures for vulnerable customers can't possibly have been applied.

I haven't yet heard back from the CMC, but will expect them to answer fully in respect of this aspect of the complaint. This wasn't the outcome I was expecting, I thought I'd get a copy of an agreement back, dated some much earlier time when all was well and I'd accept it and pay their fee.

This isn't sitting very well with me - I know, after his fee, he's still gained on the matter, but he equally could have signed something where he lost out significantly and you expect regulated companies to adhere to requirements to ensure things like this don't happen.

BooJewels

Just to finalise this thread, as I've concluded the matter. It has taken 3 weeks to get answers to questions I asked initially by email. It was much more tortuous and time-consuming than it needed to be. If it wasn't for one individual who decided to take it upon herself to get to the bottom of the matter, I'd still be battling with them and getting letters every couple of days and several calls a day demanding payment. Their conduct fell somewhat short until this one lady intervened.

They showed me the initial authorisation form where the individual engaged their services and whilst I know that person should not have signed it and did so against instruction at a time when they were in no fit state to do so - there's nothing in the form itself to raise a red flag with the CMC and get them to engage their vulnerable person checks. They never had reason to speak to him in person, as this claim was an auto payout that settled within a month or so. A call might have identified a problem, had it come to that.

Whilst the writing on the form is shaky and inconsistent with their usual penmanship, I can see that it's also done without error and everything is correct - so I have no issue with how it was received by the CMC. So I have to admit that it appears to have been done in accordance with the CMCOB, so I've paid their bill.

I am however totally bamboozled about how it was filled in at all - posted back and all remaining evidence destroyed - at a time when family were there daily - he could barely do anything for himself and I was opening all his post. That's the real mystery to us all.:huh:

Thanks for the help, much appreciated.