Fees more than the actual offer

EricTCat · 16 October 2019 at 1:47PM

I put in a claim through Gladstone Brookes, I didn't think I had anything left to claim. I'd made a prior claim against RBS/NatWest who paid out. But, they didn't tell me I had other claims I could make!

So Gladstone Brookes do their thing. They find this other claim and after a period RBS/NatWest agree to pay out.

There are the premiums, statutory interest at 8%, a figure of X, they then deducted 20% for tax, to give figure Y.

The offer made by them is the lower figure Y, but Gladstone Brookes are claiming they want their cut of the higher figure X. But that's potential money, that depends entirely on HMRC coughing up. I don't mind paying them the 25% they claim, I didn't expect them to find anything, of the actual money I'll receive. Then pay an additional 25% of any refund received at a later date from HMRC. That is fair enough, but I object strongly to paying for potential money.

What next they claim 25% of claims I settled myself previously?

Additionally, I think RBS/NatWest have played fast and loose. Why when I made my previous PPI claim didn't they "find" this money then?

This whole PPI business has been a dogs breakfast, the onus should have been placed on the banks, and I don't think interest only is enough, there should be a harsh punitive element.

I had a period of bad luck a few years, led to a breakdown, suicide attempt, repossession, they even tried pursuing me while I was in hospital. Why can't I make their lives a misery, drive them into a mental health facility? There's no justice, but that's just my rant. I need to add another thread about the repossession and excessive bank charges.

[Deleted User] · 16 October 2019 at 1:49PM

They're right to claim their fee on X, not Y, as that's the contract you agreed with them.

They won't claim their fee on any complaints you made yourself.

SonOf · 16 October 2019 at 2:07PM

CMCs charge against the gross amount being paid. If any is retained for tax, repaying defaults, arrears etc then it doesnt matter.

What next they claim 25% of claims I settled myself previously?

Why would they do that? They have no contract to do that. They do have a contract that you entered into in respect of their charge on the new stuff though.

Additionally, I think RBS/NatWest have played fast and loose. Why when I made my previous PPI claim didn't they "find" this money then?

Two reasons here:

1 - you never originally gave all the account details and specified certain accounts
2 - some of the banks have been bringing old data back onto their systems and the data was not available at the time your original complaint was made.

This whole PPI business has been a dogs breakfast, the onus should have been placed on the banks, and I don't think interest only is enough, there should be a harsh punitive element.

That isnt how English law works. It also works on the assumption that all PPI was missold when it wasnt. The banks have also paid out a lot of money on cases that were not missold. You are right that its been a dogs breakfast. The regulator knew that banks were selling it this way for decades but did nothing. The banks missold a large quantity. Consumers were putting in fraudulent complaints. No-one comes out of this in a good light.

I need to add another thread about the repossession and excessive bank charges.

The banks won the bank charges case in 2009.

Fees more than the actual offer

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free