Tweet
In January the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) took over responsibility of complaints about claims management companies.
As with the Financial Ombudsman LeO publishes case studies
Please read the recently published case study below.
A spokesperson for LeO said of this case study ''We do believe that is [sic] shows we provide a fair and impartial service, as this was a resolution agreed to and supported by both parties.''
What do you think? was LeO's descision right? Please gives us your views by voting 'yes' or 'no' in the poll at the top of this post and feel free to post your reasons why.
Thanks.
Case study
Mrs A used a CMC to help her recover unfair charges by a
large number of credit card companies, banks, and other
financial service providers. She agreed that she would pay
the CMC 25% plus VAT of any charges they recovered. The CMC
went on to recover more than £800.
Mrs A set up a standing order to pay the CMC for this work
and made a payment of £30 every month for three and a half
years. However, she did not receive regular updates regarding
the status of her debt. She eventually wrote to the CMC to ask if
she had paid off her bill but did not receive a response. Mrs A
contacted them three more times over the next six months before
the CMC finally acknowledged that Mrs A had paid them more
than she owed, offering her a refund.
Mrs A accepted the refund but had five separate claims ongoing
with the CMC, about which she’d not received any updates
in writing for four years. In the end she told the CMC she
wanted to cancel the remaining claims. The CMC agreed to the
cancellation, but charged Mrs A £2000 in cancellation fees for
the work they had already completed on the claims. Mrs A was
not happy with this fee and complained to the CMC. In response,
the CMC offered her a 50% reduction on the cancellation fee.
Mrs A was still unhappy and brought her complaint to the Legal
Ombudsman.
Our investigation found that there were service issues. For
instance, the CMC: hadn’t kept Mrs A regularly updated during
the five years it took to deal with her claims; failed to respond to
queries and concerns she raised with them; did not set out clearly
the potential costs of cancelling the contract; and had charged
for duplicated paperwork that wasn’t relevant.
When we explained this to the CMC it agreed to reduce its
cancellation fee by 75% to £500. They agreed this could be
paid back in monthly instalments of £15. This meant that Mrs A could
pay back the amount on a more affordable basis. The company also
acknowledged that the cancellation costs were not as clear as they could be
and agreed to review its contracts.
Mrs A was pleased with this and accepted it as a resolution to her complaint.
As with the Financial Ombudsman LeO publishes case studies
Please read the recently published case study below.
A spokesperson for LeO said of this case study ''We do believe that is [sic] shows we provide a fair and impartial service, as this was a resolution agreed to and supported by both parties.''
What do you think? was LeO's descision right? Please gives us your views by voting 'yes' or 'no' in the poll at the top of this post and feel free to post your reasons why.
Thanks.
Case study
Mrs A used a CMC to help her recover unfair charges by a
large number of credit card companies, banks, and other
financial service providers. She agreed that she would pay
the CMC 25% plus VAT of any charges they recovered. The CMC
went on to recover more than £800.
Mrs A set up a standing order to pay the CMC for this work
and made a payment of £30 every month for three and a half
years. However, she did not receive regular updates regarding
the status of her debt. She eventually wrote to the CMC to ask if
she had paid off her bill but did not receive a response. Mrs A
contacted them three more times over the next six months before
the CMC finally acknowledged that Mrs A had paid them more
than she owed, offering her a refund.
Mrs A accepted the refund but had five separate claims ongoing
with the CMC, about which she’d not received any updates
in writing for four years. In the end she told the CMC she
wanted to cancel the remaining claims. The CMC agreed to the
cancellation, but charged Mrs A £2000 in cancellation fees for
the work they had already completed on the claims. Mrs A was
not happy with this fee and complained to the CMC. In response,
the CMC offered her a 50% reduction on the cancellation fee.
Mrs A was still unhappy and brought her complaint to the Legal
Ombudsman.
Our investigation found that there were service issues. For
instance, the CMC: hadn’t kept Mrs A regularly updated during
the five years it took to deal with her claims; failed to respond to
queries and concerns she raised with them; did not set out clearly
the potential costs of cancelling the contract; and had charged
for duplicated paperwork that wasn’t relevant.
When we explained this to the CMC it agreed to reduce its
cancellation fee by 75% to £500. They agreed this could be
paid back in monthly instalments of £15. This meant that Mrs A could
pay back the amount on a more affordable basis. The company also
acknowledged that the cancellation costs were not as clear as they could be
and agreed to review its contracts.
Mrs A was pleased with this and accepted it as a resolution to her complaint.
Comment