Unless I'm missing something, I think the fact that they didn't have a PPI sold to them in the first place means those individuals going through the claims companies don't have a claim:unsure:
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.
Existing Users:.
Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.
New Users:
Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.
Fans from other clubs
We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.
Assistance Required
For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.
PPI Claiming vs ethics
Unless I'm missing something, I think the fact that they didn't have a PPI sold to them in the first place means those individuals going through the claims companies don't have a claim:unsure:
Firestorm
Pedant
that 30% is those who had not even taken out a policy, There is the figure to add on top for those whose claim may not be vexatious but still may not be valid.
As for regulation by the ministry of justice and the financial ombudsman , neither of these organisations are responsible for the regulation of claims management companies , thats the responsibility of the claims management regulator.
Although I can see where your confusion comes from, this bit in wiki
"The Claims Management Services Regulator was created by section 11 of the Compensation Act 2006. The post of Regulator if occupied by the Secretary of State for Justice to authorise and regulate claims management companies "
may give the impression that the Secretary of State for Justice does/did more thatn just divest powers to the CMSR
osymandus
Life President
Actually no the MOJ provide authority and regulate the claims firms (I found this out when i had an issue with one ) and all issues are to be reported to them (as i was informed by the nice civil servant at the MOJ) . The ombutsman can then also fine the companies . And this is from 2009/2010 http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/inspection-and-monitoring/claims-management-regulation/
If the 30% are made up of fraudulent claims then ... well isn't that fraud ?
Firestorm
Pedant
Yep and like those who could say no to a PPI in the first place (and it was therefore the fault of the banks) those who couldn't say no to a dodgy claims management company are also not responsible...Apparently.
The only reason people have decided to rip the banks off, is they know that there claims are just going to be rubber stamped , it will costs the banks less in the long run to pay everyone rather than employ staff etc etc to review each claim.
So people see it as free money, and as its the banks they probably feel justified.
Its pretty much the same with a lot of insurance claims too, most claimants add a bit here and there to the claim under the misconception that they are entitled to it, not realising that fraud adds an average of 44 quid a year to each policy
http://www.abi.org.uk/Publications/55680.pdf
osymandus
Life President
Im with you both on people not having a claim and it being wrong to try to claim . However the cases that lead to the FSA making their decision and the courts ruling on these were real and valid . Or they simply could not have gone through the courts. Some we're deliberately obscured and mis-sold to people . In the same way the the energy companies now have to make their tariffs easier to understand. We cant complain if something is explained and laid out in a manner that is easy to understand , but we can if jargon and/or a deliberate attempt is used to obscure our understanding of all the parts of a service or product we are being sold .
Firestorm
Pedant
This is taken from one of the documents on your link
"CMCs are regulated by the Claims Management Regulator"
Bottom RHS of page 2
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads...on/note-about-claims-management-companies.pdf
osymandus
Life President
Yes i wasn't disputing their existence what i was saying is MOJ have direct responsibility for all of it , the CMR are a part of that their a functionary of the MOJ not the authority . Also this document is jointly from the MOJ , FSA , fcsc and the fincial ombudsman service . There is also a part that states the ombudsman refering cases then on to the CMR
Last year (2010/11) the ombudsman
service concluded that only 0.9% of their
total caseload could be categorised as
‘frivolous or vexatious’ (0.4% in the year
before that).
The ombudsman service and the FSCS
monitors submissions received from CMCs
and if either has concerns about how
CMCs are handling cases it will refer this
onto the Claims Management Regulator.
ShrimperZone Sponsors
ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship
Southend United Away Travel
All At Sea Fanzine
