CMC Rule Consultation

[Celestine]

Re: CMC Rule Consultation

Brilliant, thanks EXC

[TUTTSI]

Re: CMC Rule Consultation

Excellent Exc, that is very comprehensive and many thanks for completing this and getting it in on time.

[EXC]

Re: CMC Rule Consultation

Dear Mr EXC,

Thank you very much for the response and contribution to the consultation.

We will consider the response accordingly. It is our intention to publish our response to the consultation towards the end of the year which will set out the final changes, hopefully in December.

Please let me know if you have any queries.

Regards,

Mr Ashley Palmer
Policy & Regulation Manager
Claims Management Regulation | Corporate Performance Group
Ministry Of Justice | 4.15 - Zone B | 102 Petty France | London | SW1H 9AJ

[EXC]

Re: CMC Rule Consultation

Here's the BBA's response to the consultation.

Although it makes many of the same points as ours, at the very end it says:

In addition to our general comments outlined at the start of this consultation response, the BBA would welcome a simple measure to speed up the process for consumers represented by CMCs: we believe that CMCs should be required to provide the name of the product and account/reference number as a minimum level of detail when making a complaint to a financial institution.



It's unbelievable that they want to be able to dismiss complaints outright on the basis that the claimant is unable to remember the account/reference number.

[TUTTSI]

Re: CMC Rule Consultation

What has been happening the CMC's have been putting in bogus claims to banks and institutions where there is no claim, account no ect, this has casued further backlogs for the banks etc. This was highlighted in one of the MOJ's authorisation bulletin updates which I have posted up a sticky on the MOJ have warned the CMC's about this - http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...12-bulletin-15. The thing is the CMC will charge an upfront fee for each claim they make so by them making bogus claims they were getting more money upfront with the client not knowing whether they had PPI or not.

Here's the BBA's response to the consultation.

Although it makes many of the same points as ours, at the very end it says:

In addition to our general comments outlined at the start of this consultation response, the BBA would welcome a simple measure to speed up the process for consumers represented by CMCs: we believe that CMCs should be required to provide the name of the product and account/reference number as a minimum level of detail when making a complaint to a financial institution.



It's unbelievable that they want to be able to dismiss complaints outright on the basis that the claimant is unable to remember the account/reference number.

[EXC]

Re: CMC Rule Consultation

What has been happening the CMC's have been putting in bogus claims to banks and institutions where there is no claim, account no ect, this has casued further backlogs for the banks etc. This was highlighted in one of the MOJ's authorisation updates which I have posted up a sticky on the MOJ have warned the CMC's about this. The thing is the CMC will charge an upfront fee for each claim they make so by them making bogus claims they were getting more money upfront with the client not knowing whether they had PPI or not.

Yes I understand that but as most PPI complaints are handled by CMCs, the BBA's proposal would mean that there would be a very large number of genuine complaints that banks could dismiss becuase they couldn't be bothered to check that a customer had PPI or not by reference to their name & address.

[EXC]

Re: CMC Rule Consultation

The MOJ have issued a consultation document which includes proposals for the funding framework for the Legal Ombudsman.

CMCs will have the cost of financing LeO added to their MOJ authorisation fee plus they'll have to pay LeO a case fee of £400 per complaint they deal with.

From the projected figures it looks like they're expecting to deal with around 1500 cases a year - the MOJ currently get around 1200 complaints.

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digit...companies-fees

[Sapphire]

Re: CMC Rule Consultation

Excellent

[TUTTSI]

Re: CMC Rule Consultation

Fantastic news but what about upfront fees and insurance?

The MOJ have issued a consultation document which includes proposals for the funding framework for the Legal Ombudsman.

CMCs will have the cost of financing LeO added to their MOJ authorisation fee plus they'll have to pay LeO a case fee of £400 per complaint they deal with.

From the projected figures it looks like they're expecting to deal with around 1500 cases a year - the MOJ currently get around 1200 complaints.

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digit...companies-fees

[EXC]

Re: CMC Rule Consultation

Upfront fees were covered in the last consultation and they'll definately be banned. Insurance isn't on the table - at least yet.

[alham]

Re: CMC Rule Consultation

I know I am too late with my comments but a simple escrow account would solve a lot of problems.

[Bill-K]

Re: CMC Rule Consultation

I dunno if a response from a guy whose 'capacity' is as a voluntary member of Legal Beagles counts - but they got one from me, anywayz.