Angry on her behalf

Grittedteeth

I will start with a question and then I must leave for work. Any ideas /theories appreciated , if I receive responses I will pick up later.
Briefly. My new friend entered into contact in 2018 with a cmc regarding mid selling PPI even though she explained she had failed in 2013. In Sept 18 the Halifax contacted her and upheld its decision of rejection due to time lapse. However, they did look at commission rates and compensated her, by this date the industry had been instructed to review commission rates as a matter of course.
The cmc sent an invoice for £2800ish (30%) plus vat. The invoice is titled Successful mid sold pip claim ....
I had her call the company and reject the bill due to what I consider a fraudulent claim. They had failed and the Halifax did as they were due to do.
They pushed and she crumbled.

Any advice on the story so far ? 
The story gets better and will continue later.

dunstonh

 However, they did look at commission rates and compensated her, by this date the industry had been instructed to review commission rates as a matter of course.

Just in case you don't realise, they were only asked to review past cases upon request.   Only new cases were automatically checked.

I had her call the company and reject the bill due to what I consider a fraudulent claim. They had failed and the Halifax did as they were due to do.
They pushed and she crumbled.

How was it fraudulent?   CMC contracts are normally based on amounts paid out following their actions.

Any advice on the story so far ? 
The story gets better and will continue later.

No point giving any advice on a tiny bit of information given so far.  We have virtually no detail.

Grittedteeth

Sorry for the delayed return. The invoice is specific .successful mis-sold ppi claim against Halifax.

The response from the Halifax is specific "I have not reconsidered your PPI mis-selling complaint"

......"the FCA has published final rules and guidance about how to assess whether the non-disclosure of the level of commission...... created an Unfair Relationship."
"I have concluded...... that an Unfair RELATIONSHIP was created...."
Recently the claim company contacted my partner by phone and told her she was probably entitled to more money.
I walked in after the conversation started, I turned on my voice recorder and the speaker as soon as I realised what was happening. The sales girl is stunning in her pitch technique, and sheer neck. 
When I asked for a recap she was despairing. She told us the electronic paperwork needed signing NOW but you really need to read contract ASAP, but nothing in it that she hadn't explained. I asked if she could call back once we had read about the deal being offered. She said, " Victoria, this is your account  and your choice....." basically telling me to bu**er off. There is plenty more , this is superb. She even struggled to make her name audible. She congratulated my partner once she had signed.
It is a beautiful recording and I really want to share it.
Oh, and its a secret!

So, I am saying the company shouldn't have charged for something that the PPI provider had been instructed to address by the FCA. The claim company have effectively admitted this as I believe if you are awarded your mis-selling claim you are unable to complain regarding commission.

dunstonh

So, I am saying the company shouldn't have charged for something that the PPI provider had been instructed to address by the FCA. The claim company have effectively admitted this as I believe if you are awarded your mis-selling claim you are unable to complain regarding commission.

The regulated complaints process is free of charge for consumers to use.   If you employ a third party to make the complaint for you then you cover the costs.     The financial firm is not required to pay the costs of any third party.

If the complaint is rejected, the bank will automatically check to see Plevin applies.    If it does, they will pay out for that and the CMC will take their cut against it.

If no complaint is made in the first place, no check for Plevin is made. Banks were not checking for plevin on cases where people had not complained in the first place.

Grittedteeth

But as mis-selling and plevin are two distinct areas,and now the Doran thrown into the mix , I would counter the the cmc offered to take on the mis-selling ppi part. No mention of plevin at start or concluding invoice. This Web site says they are distinct complaints. Indeed, had the cmc not made contact the building society would have reviewed it in due course.

Grittedteeth

The fact that if your ppi is complaint is rejected and rejection upheld by the ombudsman yet you were able to do a 'Plevin' yourself before the institutions were instructed to consider all ,surely makes this distinction.

dunstonh

Indeed, had the cmc not made contact the building society would have reviewed it in due course.

Plevin checks were only carried out on rejected complaints or if you asked the bank to do a Plevin check.    Your new friend didn't ask but the actions of the CMC resulted in the check being made.   The building society would not have reviewed it in due course.

 Your new friend has received compensation. The contract will almost certainly say it is against compensation and not name the method. 

Your new friend is free to take them to court to argue the case. 

Grittedteeth

 Thanks for your opinions dunstonh. 

I am only drawing my conclusions from the text below which I have copied from this site. 

The invoice wording is very important in my mind, esp being a legal document. There are many references which put distance between mis-selling and 'Plevin'.

"New PPI claims are normally automatically checked for Plevin

Following the Plevin case, new rules on commission came into force on 29 August 2017, so any PPI claims since then should have been automatically checked for Plevin eligibility as well. 

If you've previously been rejected, you're likely still due a Plevin payout

Plevin could work for you if you've had a claim rejected from a bank, building society or other big financial institution (even if the ombudsman agreed with the rejection). There were 1.2 million whose claims had been turned down (as of 29 August 2017) who were then eligible under Plevin. If you were one of these, you should have been notified of this by your bank by now, but if not, claim anyway"

As for the recent approach, I wish there was a vehicle where I could make the recording available for you to hear.

Stenwold

I think this has been explained pretty well already. The Plevin checks were carried out as a result of your friends claim via a CMC. If your friend doesn't want to pay the invoice, they shouldn't have entered into a contract with the CMC.

[Deleted User]

Saw one last night on the Channel 5 version of "can't pay, we'll take it away" - had the PPI payout, PPI firm had got to the point of sending bailiffs around to get their money (and obviously refused a payment plan because the lady had the payout so had the cash)

dunstonh

Thanks for your opinions dunstonh. 

It isn't opinion. It is how the system worked. 

I am only drawing my conclusions from the text below which I have copied from this site. 

This site is not the regulator and it has a trend of keeping articles simple and short as a priority over technical accuracy.

quote from this site:
Following the Plevin case, new rules on commission came into force on 29 August 2017, so any PPI claims since then should have been automatically checked for Plevin eligibility as well. 

That quote is correct and is exactly what we have said.

If you've previously been rejected, you're likely still due a Plevin payout
Plevin could work for you if you've had a claim rejected from a bank, building society or other big financial institution (even if the ombudsman agreed with the rejection). There were 1.2 million whose claims had been turned down (as of 29 August 2017) who were then eligible under Plevin. If you were one of these, you should have been notified of this by your bank by now, but if not, claim anyway"

That quote is wrong.

If you have been previously rejected, you were able to go back to the financial firm and ask them to do a plevin check.    There was a period whilst Plevin was under consultation by the FCA that the banks etc had to keep on file to go back and check but they did not have to go back on cases prior to that unless asked to do so by the policyholder/borrower.

The invoice wording is very important in my mind, esp being a legal document. There are many references which put distance between mis-selling and 'Plevin'.

No there isn't.   However, your friend is free to have their day in court to test your opinion.