Bank denials until Claim Company involved

E_and_DMB

For over 3 years and 24 written communication between Lloyds and the Ombudsman our PPI claim was repeatedly denied.
Just 6 weeks after involving a claim company Lloyds 'found' we had a valid claim and paid up!
We had to pay 20% to the claim company and Lloyds is refusing to refund us this amount., which we feel they should.
ANY COMMENTS OR ADVICE?

The_squirrell

The only advice is......accept the money and pay the bill to the CMC. The CMC's involvement will have had nothing to do with any change of mind. It could be that new evidence has come to light, new criteria has been applied, archived details have been discovered.....anything!


Just accept the coincidence between the Claims company posting a form and the change of decision. As has been said many times on here, the CMC only posts a form with the details that you provide. They do nothing else!

[Deleted User]

E_and_DMB wrote: »

ANY COMMENTS OR ADVICE?

Yes - never use a claims company again.

BoGoF

E_and_DMB wrote: »

ANY COMMENTS OR ADVICE?

Yes, banging on caps lock makes you look foolish.......don't do it.

SonOf

A number of banks had been bringing old archived data that could not previously be found on searches back onto their systems. This has led to many finding their complaints reopened and reconsidered. Often this happened on a pro-active basis by the bank (with the consumer needing to do nothing). However, if a follow-up complaint was made, often by a CMC, then the bank would bring the review forward and make a decision then.

The fact a CMC was involved was your choice. The change in the decision had nothing to do with the CMC. CMCs know banks have been bringing old data back and have been desperate to get attached to customers so they can claim their 20% for doing nothing other than bringing the review date forward.

In accordance with the rules CMCs work to, they are required to tell you that you could have done this free of charge yourself and that using them to do it will see you pay the fee if successful.

sun73

SonOf wrote: »

A number of banks had been bringing old archived data that could not previously be found on searches back onto their systems. This has led to many finding their complaints reopened and reconsidered. Often this happened on a pro-active basis by the bank (with the consumer needing to do nothing). However, if a follow-up complaint was made, often by a CMC, then the bank would bring the review forward and make a decision then.

The fact a CMC was involved was your choice. The change in the decision had nothing to do with the CMC. CMCs know banks have been bringing old data back and have been desperate to get attached to customers so they can claim their 20% for doing nothing other than bringing the review date forward.

In accordance with the rules CMCs work to, they are required to tell you that you could have done this free of charge yourself and that using them to do it will see you pay the fee if successful.

Can I ask how do you know and which banks have been bringing old archived data back onto their systems? Why could it not have been previously found?

brettcta

I work for a bank doing PPI complaints and can confirm the above. Archived data might be found, for example, when IT systems are upgraded or moved to a new server. I know that’s how some of ours has come to light over the years. I can’t talk for other lenders though but there’s loads of reasons for it.