Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • berryman898
    • By berryman898 9th Dec 17, 2:05 PM
    • 2Posts
    • 0Thanks
    berryman898
    CMC company trying to claim payment on plevin award
    • #1
    • 9th Dec 17, 2:05 PM
    CMC company trying to claim payment on plevin award 9th Dec 17 at 2:05 PM
    I'll give you a little background first. Two years ago I used a cmc to make a claim for ppi refund that was successful. Since then I have had no contact with them. About 2 months ago I received a letter direct from the bank. Telling me that i could make a claim against them. (Plevin ruling). This i did directly with the bank who made an award and sent me a check. Now the claims company are asking for a percentage of this even though they were not involved. I believe the Plevin ruling only came into effect on 29.08.17.
    I have sent an email of complaint to them. It seems extremely unfair that they can attempt to gain money for a claim they were not involved in. Apparently Lloyds named them on a document and this is how they new i had made a claim. Any thoughts?.
Page 2
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 10th May 18, 10:04 AM
    • 94,556 Posts
    • 62,527 Thanks
    dunstonh
    Iím having exactly the same issue with quite possibly the same company so Iím really intrigued to know how you get on with this ! Please let me know and good luck!
    Originally posted by Rogersfamily
    All other people that have posted on the site have so far succeeded in getting the CMC to back down after they mention the Ministry of justice website and what it says in section 3.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Mrs_Moir77
    • By Mrs_Moir77 10th May 18, 1:24 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Mrs_Moir77
    Quick update - resolved!!! The CMC just got back to me - after refusing my reduced offer - say will accept it. It is less than 10% - the initially wanted 30% of my payout, then they offered 15%. I sent an email detailing the information provided by dunstonh

    They had settled previous PPI for my husband (we had a joint account) which we settled in full with no issues. The rely on refer a friend and obviously did not want negative publicity.

    By paying them I have kept 90% of the money and I can now use it to do the house improvements it was earmarked for.

    thank you for all of your advice!!!!!
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 10th May 18, 2:29 PM
    • 20,993 Posts
    • 11,758 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    By paying them I have kept 90% of the money
    Originally posted by Mrs_Moir77
    By not paying them you would have 100% of the money.

    Frankly, you were robbed.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 10th May 18, 2:44 PM
    • 5,486 Posts
    • 3,383 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    Quick update - resolved!!! The CMC just got back to me - after refusing my reduced offer - say will accept it. It is less than 10% - the initially wanted 30% of my payout, then they offered 15%. I sent an email detailing the information provided by dunstonh

    They had settled previous PPI for my husband (we had a joint account) which we settled in full with no issues. The rely on refer a friend and obviously did not want negative publicity.

    By paying them I have kept 90% of the money and I can now use it to do the house improvements it was earmarked for.

    thank you for all of your advice!!!!!
    Originally posted by Mrs_Moir77
    This is not a result, the CMC were not entitled to a penny and were relying on your lack of knowledge of this area to get some out. 10% of your refund is 10% more than they should have
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 10th May 18, 2:52 PM
    • 20,993 Posts
    • 11,758 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    The rely on refer a friend and obviously did not want negative publicity.
    Originally posted by Mrs_Moir77
    Actually, they "rely" on people's ignorance and naivety.

    Name and shame this company...
    • Mrs_Moir77
    • By Mrs_Moir77 10th May 18, 8:36 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Mrs_Moir77
    I!!!8217;ll name them - the Fair Trade Practice. I just wanted it it dealt with. I have my reasons for not going ahead with the complaint with the LO. I know I haven!!!8217;t kept all my money - but at the end of the day this was my decision. I am now no longer under any contract with them and can now pursue other ppl without them.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 10th May 18, 9:09 PM
    • 20,993 Posts
    • 11,758 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    the Fair Trade Practice.
    Originally posted by Mrs_Moir77
    A misnomer if ever I heard one...
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 10th May 18, 10:46 PM
    • 5,486 Posts
    • 3,383 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    I!!!8217;ll name them - the Fair Trade Practice. I just wanted it it dealt with. I have my reasons for not going ahead with the complaint with the LO. I know I haven!!!8217;t kept all my money - but at the end of the day this was my decision. I am now no longer under any contract with them and can now pursue other ppl without them.
    Originally posted by Mrs_Moir77

    And you let them get on with conning more people who don't know what the rules are by not complaining - if you had complained and the LO had taken action they might have stopped, now they will just keep trying their luck
    • Mrs_Moir77
    • By Mrs_Moir77 11th May 18, 10:21 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Mrs_Moir77
    how dare you! I made MY decision to resolve this as quickly as I could. You have NO IDEA of my circumstance and why I made MY decision.

    For the record - I was given no assurances from the LO about this. Apart from the would recommend a new POA was granted. Even when I quoted the MOJ at them they would not give me concrete advice. At the same time I was been hassled for payment and threatened with charges and court action. I wanted this resolved as it has been going on for a number of months.

    I would not recommend any CMC to anyone - I have learnt my lesson not just about the CMC's but here. I posted for advice - which I appreciate. I CHOSE to resolve and get bashed for it. Thanks a lot.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 11th May 18, 11:14 AM
    • 20,993 Posts
    • 11,758 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    I CHOSE to resolve and get bashed for it.
    Originally posted by Mrs_Moir77
    The point is that you asked for advice here and then roundly ignored it. That was indeed your choice, but you should not expect us to congratulate you.

    As a result, you've now paid this company money they are not entitled to and also for doing something you could have done yourself simply and for free.

    You've been robbed not once, but twice effectively.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 11th May 18, 11:35 AM
    • 94,556 Posts
    • 62,527 Thanks
    dunstonh
    For the record - I was given no assurances from the LO about this. Apart from the would recommend a new POA was granted. Even when I quoted the MOJ at them they would not give me concrete advice. At the same time I was been hassled for payment and threatened with charges and court action. I wanted this resolved as it has been going on for a number of months.
    I have said it elsewhere that the LO appears to be weaker in remit that the FOS is (in their respective areas). If a financial firm billed incorrectly or against FCA rules then the FOS would tell them to refund. Whereas the LO posts here told people to pay under duress and reclaim via the court. This is despite the MoJ rules being clear.

    However, someone made a post earlier today saying that the LO have told them that the CMC shouldnt have charged the money.

    This could be a developing issue where initial complaints via the LO are different to later complaints where they have had a chance to look into them more and legal advice sought. That has happened with the FOS in the past where early complaints get different responses to later ones as more information becomes available.

    I would have stood my ground as you have a) the rules that CMCs should be working by published by the ministry of justice and b) the warning given by the Ministry of Justice that charging fees they are not entitled to could be considered fraud.

    If they went to court, putting Ministry of Justice rules in front a judge is pretty strong.

    I would not recommend any CMC to anyone - I have learnt my lesson not just about the CMC's but here.
    yes, the banks did wrong but they are highly regulated and the culture is much improved nowadays. CMCs are a bit like the banks were 20 years ago.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Rogersfamily
    • By Rogersfamily 16th May 18, 8:44 AM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Rogersfamily
    All other people that have posted on the site have so far succeeded in getting the CMC to back down after they mention the Ministry of justice website and what it says in section 3.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    thanks Dunstonh!
    i emailed them telling them they weren't entitled to anything as the payout is not for the original claim which had been rejected and closed over 2 years ago and that its a result of a claim i submitted last year and nothing to do with them.
    they have replied to tell me that the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) advised them in 2016, that our PPI complaint was affected by the Plevin ruling and that the refund has come off the back of the work they started 4 years ago.
    i have replied again and pointed out the MOJ section 3 as you state and reiterated that they had no part in this additional claim and had not sought my approval after the original rejection and closure to go after the card company again and certainly not for a different claim.
    i am waiting for the reply. if you can offer any further suggestions i would greatly appreciate them as i intend to fight this all the way !
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 16th May 18, 9:43 AM
    • 94,556 Posts
    • 62,527 Thanks
    dunstonh
    they have replied to tell me that the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) advised them in 2016, that our PPI complaint was affected by the Plevin ruling and that the refund has come off the back of the work they started 4 years ago.
    And at any time, did the CMC notify you of this or did they tell you the complaint was closed?

    If they did tell you that "your complaint failed. However, there was something new coming which could see a refund, so please wait until the consultation has been completed and we will then take it further" then that is continuous.

    If they told you the complaint was rejected and over then that is final and they need a new letter of authority and permission to proceeed.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Rogersfamily
    • By Rogersfamily 16th May 18, 11:05 AM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Rogersfamily
    And at any time, did the CMC notify you of this or did they tell you the complaint was closed?

    If they did tell you that "your complaint failed. However, there was something new coming which could see a refund, so please wait until the consultation has been completed and we will then take it further" then that is continuous.

    If they told you the complaint was rejected and over then that is final and they need a new letter of authority and permission to proceeed.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    Thanks Dunstonh
    i received a letter telling me the complaint had been rejected and they were referring it to the financial ombudsman and then a further letter saying that had failed also. i have not seen anything from them regarding plevin whatsoever! also it was well over 2 years ago so surely there is a time limit factor too?! this claim shows on my account as a new claim number to the previous one too so clearly a separate claim.
    it is the same company as has been mentioned above so clearly they are trying this tactic on a lot of people! they need stopping
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 16th May 18, 11:11 AM
    • 20,993 Posts
    • 11,758 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    it was well over 2 years ago so surely there is a time limit factor too?
    Originally posted by Rogersfamily
    Not in your case. If the Company had told you two years ago that they were waiting for the Plevin Ruling, then that would not be the subject of any time-bar.

    The fact is that they didn't inform you that your complaint was pending Plevin and so cannot say that your complaint has been ongoing. That is the only important fact

    So stick to that fact, don't try to manufacture additional regulations which do not apply and might dilute the effectiveness of your challenge.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 16th May 18, 11:53 AM
    • 94,556 Posts
    • 62,527 Thanks
    dunstonh
    If its the same one that has been mentioned then they have backed down in all bar one that we are aware of here. And they probably would have backed down on that on too had the person stood their ground.

    Use that section 3 against them. That is the rule they have to follow. You can clearly see what it says and what they havent done. So, ask them to supply a copy of the new letter of authority they obtained or the correspondence that confirmed they had your permission to proceed.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Rogersfamily
    • By Rogersfamily 18th May 18, 10:32 AM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Rogersfamily
    And at any time, did the CMC notify you of this or did they tell you the complaint was closed?

    If they did tell you that "your complaint failed. However, there was something new coming which could see a refund, so please wait until the consultation has been completed and we will then take it further" then that is continuous.

    If they told you the complaint was rejected and over then that is final and they need a new letter of authority and permission to proceeed.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    the CMC have replied with the following (summarised)
    the lender declined my PPI complaint in 2014
    they referred it to the FOS
    FOS replied to them in july 16 saying they agreed with the lender i wasnt miss sold. they went on to mention there could be a possibility of future payout based on a possible plevin vs paragon ruling (lots of possibles and maybes). i did not get a copy of this letter.
    i submitted an online application last year based on the plevin ruling through the lenders website
    the lender has now sent the CMC a copy of my refund letter and because they have stated the same claim reference number as was on the original claim and decline back in 2014 the fair trade practice say it means the refund has come off the back of their work and they are entitled to their fee
    when i look on my fair trade practice account against the claim reference they all refer to it clearly states they have closed this claim
    where do i stand on this can anyone advise please?
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 18th May 18, 11:02 AM
    • 20,993 Posts
    • 11,758 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    where do i stand on this can anyone advise please?
    Originally posted by Rogersfamily
    Read the earlier responses both to you and others in this thread. The advice is to stand your ground and contest the bill. Refer your complaint to the Legal Ombudsman.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 18th May 18, 11:03 AM
    • 94,556 Posts
    • 62,527 Thanks
    dunstonh
    the CMC have replied with the following (summarised)
    the lender declined my PPI complaint in 2014
    they referred it to the FOS
    FOS replied to them in july 16 saying they agreed with the lender i wasnt miss sold. they went on to mention there could be a possibility of future payout based on a possible plevin vs paragon ruling (lots of possibles and maybes). i did not get a copy of this letter.
    i submitted an online application last year based on the plevin ruling through the lenders website
    the lender has now sent the CMC a copy of my refund letter and because they have stated the same claim reference number as was on the original claim and decline back in 2014 the fair trade practice say it means the refund has come off the back of their work and they are entitled to their fee
    when i look on my fair trade practice account against the claim reference they all refer to it clearly states they have closed this claim
    where do i stand on this can anyone advise please?
    Originally posted by Rogersfamily
    Nothing new to add I'm afraid.

    If the CMC told you that there was something currently under review and that you had to wait until that review/consultation was completed then they are entitled to be paid. They have done their job (which was only to put a letter in the envelope and post it in the first place)

    If the CMC did nothing after the complaint was rejected by the FOS and it was more than 6 months then they need to get a new letter of authority and permission from you to proceed.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Rogersfamily
    • By Rogersfamily 18th May 18, 12:18 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Rogersfamily
    Nothing new to add I'm afraid.

    If the CMC told you that there was something currently under review and that you had to wait until that review/consultation was completed then they are entitled to be paid. They have done their job (which was only to put a letter in the envelope and post it in the first place)

    If the CMC did nothing after the complaint was rejected by the FOS and it was more than 6 months then they need to get a new letter of authority and permission from you to proceed.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    thanks. the CMC did not inform me of it still being under review, they stated the claim as being rejected and closed. they have sent me a copy of a letter the FOS sent them stating the plevin ruling may be applicable later on but they did not send this to me. i have only seen this today.

    they have not asked for permission to claim under the plevin ruling, not that they would even have done any work for it as the lender contacted me and i completed the online claim form. i have gone back to the CMC on the basis that the original claim was rejected and closed, they have not asked for my permission to contact the lender re plevin ruling and have not played in part in the latest claim - i await their reply
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,013Posts Today

8,357Users online

Martin's Twitter