FOS: Claims management firms 'exploited' PPI scandal

Dont want to deal with it

From the very beginning when the mis-selling of PPI became an issue the FOS have not wanted to deal with PPI complaints. At the first meeting with CMC's to discuss handling PPI complaints the FOS confidently predicted that the number of PPI complaints they would deal with would start dropping within 12 months, this was back in 2007/8. In 2010 when it became obvious that banks were not dealing with PPI complaints properly (pre the JR) the FOS were saying it was 'business as usual' and at every stage CMC's have been telling them this was wrong. This was not exploitation of an issue, this was getting the facts right and at every stage the FOS have got it wrong and are now blaming CMC's for bringing too many complaints. Yes they are some unscrupulous CMC's out there, but if the banks hadn't been so unscrupulous in the way they originally sold the policies this problem wouldn't be here. Don't blame the messenger. The FOS were told this was going to be a problem and ignored the warnings from the very start.

Posted by: Matthew Whiting

Claims Companies

Claims Companies have advertised (Millions spent) all the main issues of UK Consumer detriment, where FOS CANNOT DO SO (By law) it is a reactive service only, the millions of pounds spent by CMCs and their shareholders to raise issues have pushed and pressured the issues at stake, yes there some CMC's who charge too much, but the regulator will take action if needed. Many CMC's have gone out of business, whilst the Financial Industry has exhausted every avenue to try and get themselves off the hook! The continuation of anti CMC press is a total reflection of the fact that the Financial Industry does not want the Claims Industry to become strong, as you know there are many other areas where you have taken the p**s!

Posted by: Matthew P

FOS Fees

My experience of CMC's is mixed. I have seen cases brought to light that have genuine merit however I have also seen many poorly delivered examples laden with threats of FOS referral etc. I would like to see all CMC's conducting proper research with the customer they purport to represent - as opposed to the 'spray and pray' methodology so often evident. I would also like to see all CMC's properly consider complaints Final Responses issued by Financial Services (FS) companies who conduct genuine TCF investigations of all accusations received - instead of ignoring the evidence as is often the case. To achieve the aforementioned, I would advocate a position whereby when a CMC decides to pursue a FOS referral on behalf of the claimant after a complaint has been rejected by the Financial Services firm, that the FOS outcome would determine who pays the FOS fee. i.e. If FOS uphold the complaint against the FS firm - fair enough the FS firm must pay. However, if the FOS find in favour of the FS firm (agreeing with its original final response), the CMC should foot the FOS bill (not the customer as FOS should always be free to the genuine complainant). I have however been advised it would take an Act of Parliament to bring about this change so i am not holding my breath although I think it would go a long way to ensuring that customers get genuine considered representation from ALL parties involved.

Posted by: Donald Fraser