CAP on CMCs -Cutting costs for consumers in financial claims – Consultations – GOV.UK

[Turboman]

Re: CAP on CMCs -Cutting costs for consumers in financial claims – Consultations – GO

Bugga

Forgot to include this relevant quote from the Barclaycard PPI Claim vsite

A CMC may charge an up-front fee or take a proportion of any payment you may be due. Claims are dealt with in exactly the same way whether they are made by a customer or CMC. They will not be dealt with any quicker by using a CMC.

[Amethyst]

Re: CAP on CMCs -Cutting costs for consumers in financial claims – Consultations – GO

You have given me a brilliant ( in my view) idea Ta muchly xxx ( check the CMC compare page in a couple days )

[Turboman]

Re: CAP on CMCs -Cutting costs for consumers in financial claims – Consultations – GO

My quote on post 16 was from both the FAQ and the Guidance Notes in filling in their customised (FOS) questionaire

https://www.barclaycard.co.uk/personal/ppi


Strategic-guidance-1.pdf

[Turboman]

Re: CAP on CMCs -Cutting costs for consumers in financial claims – Consultations – GO

Absolutely brilliant Ame----publisizing the free methods of claiming direct from the banks---you are a star!!

Back in a distant time--me & Marshallka & di30 & Bill had to coerce posters and help them to "pull teeth " to get any information from unresponsive banks--& even had to devise complex spreadsheets to pre-arm posters as to what they should expect

Thank goodness for the FCA new transparency guidelines and associated handbooks--my only role now is to check out complex cases of discrepancy re unexpected offers.

Which leaves me much more time to listen to my Adele & Queen music & DVD's--lol

Turbs

You have given me a brilliant ( in my view) idea Ta muchly xxx ( check the CMC compare page in a couple days )

[Amethyst]

Re: CAP on CMCs -Cutting costs for consumers in financial claims – Consultations – GO

Thanking you kindly - still a few more to add but getting there - Things are much simpler now... amazes me how people still end up with the CMC's. We have come to terms with the fact that people WILL use CMC's so we just have to shove the right informatioon under noses so people make the right (or best) choices.


Another CMC report out today - it's MASSIVE so will read it tmw properly - quick skim it all looks positive though - https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...view_final.pdf


Talking about future regulation - one option was to give CMC's to the SRA

Disadvantages
10.69
During the review, it transpired that the SRA (previously suggested by the FCA as a
potential regulator) are not renowned for taking strong action where detriment caused by CMCs
has been identified (i.e. in relation to the referral fee ban); it appears that CMC enforcement
would not be consistent with the SRA’s strategic outlook, and indeed the objectives proposed by
this review are not consistent with the organisational priorities of the SRA

so that will be a no then, although CMCs are very closely linked to Solicitors and legal services.

[Amethyst]

Re: CAP on CMCs -Cutting costs for consumers in financial claims – Consultations – GO

Personal accountability for directors - page 32 ( page 36 of the PDF )

Personal accountability for directors
5.9
Stakeholders, including the CMRU, expressed concerns about the ability of the director of a
liquidated firm to take over another authorised firm without requiring approval from the CMRU.
5.10
There are two ways in which this is possible. The first way is by acquiring multiple
authorisations simultaneously, with the extra companies to be used at a later stage where the
first business experiences financial difficulties or once the CMRU begins enforcement action. The
second method – which the CMRU reports is increasingly common – is to acquire an existing legitimate CMC, as a change in company director does not require authorisation from the
regulator.
5.11
Another concern is the frequency and ease with which CMCs re-emerge as a new firm
following liquidation or insolvency, with some or all of the directors remaining in place. CMRU
has already taken some steps to tackle this issue, by refusing or otherwise deterring
authorisations for ‘phoenix’ companies.
5.12
These examples demonstrate how authorisation alone is not sufficient to deter or prevent
unscrupulous business or individuals operating in the CMC sector and suggests that the current
regime is not robust enough to ensure that individuals suffer the consequences of their actions.
5.13
Under the CMRU’s Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2014, there is a requirement that
CMCs ‘shall be directed by people with the necessary competence who must have a working 33
knowledge of the legislation and rules relating to regulated claims management services’.
However, the CMRU lacks a legislative mandate to enable these rules to hold individuals
personally accountable for actions of the firms they control. The rules do not therefore create a
sufficient deterrent to poor conduct.
5.14
A senior managers regime would address these concerns by requiring the pre-authorisation
of all individuals who perform a ‘controlled function’ for an authorised firm. The controlled
functions are those roles for a regulated claims management service that have a particular
regulatory significance. An example is being a director of a regulated firm, or being responsible
for regulatory compliance.
5.15
A robust regime of personal accountability would have several benefits. First, unscrupulous
directors would be prevented from utilising dormant pre-authorised companies, acquiring
legitimate CMCs, or establishing ‘phoenix’ companies. Second, it would hold individuals
personally accountable for the conduct of their firms, providing a proper framework to ensure
that poor conduct does not go unpunished. Third, it would diminish the likelihood of a firm
being controlled from behind the scenes, as individuals would be reluctant to be held
accountable for regulatory breaches.
5.16
A majority of stakeholders (including the insurance industry, some in the banking industry,
consumer bodies and many CMCs) supported a system of personal accountability. Many
stakeholders explicitly referenced the FCA’s Senior Managers regime as a model the CMRU
should seek to mirror. The precise design of the regime would need to be subject to more
detailed policy work and be tailored to the CMC sector, but is likely to include a test of fitness
and propriety to practice and a requirement to disclose any associations with companies that
have gone into liquidation.
5.17
Some CMCs felt that a senior managers-style regime would be disproportionate, deterring
new entrants and harming competition, but a leading trade body and some of the largest
individual CMCs believed this would be a positive step, enhancing professional standards and
integrity.



Box 5.B:
Recommendation 7
Persons wishing to perform controlled functions for a firm regulated by the CMRU should be
required to:

Pass a fit and proper persons test, which will consider honesty, integrity and
reputation, but also competence and capability, and financial soundness

Be personally accountable for rule breaches for which they are responsible

[fastunsecured]

Re: CAP on CMCs -Cutting costs for consumers in financial claims – Consultations – GO

Thank you very much for you informative post. Please continue by posting this type of post. Thanks again

[Amethyst]

Re: CAP on CMCs -Cutting costs for consumers in financial claims – Consultations – GO

We have submitted a response to this. Quite brief but our honestly held views.

[EXC]

Re: CAP on CMCs -Cutting costs for consumers in financial claims – Consultations – GO

We have submitted a response to this. Quite brief but our honestly held views.

...which included the example of Elkador Finance who despite being under investigation for almost a year didn't have any terms & conditions or any reference as to what their charges were, in breach of the Conduct of Authorised Persons rules.

They've since been fined £315k but still haven't updated their website.

https://www.claimsregulation.gov.uk/details.aspx/25535

http://www.elkadorfinance.co.uk/

The industry regulator has today also announced that it has fined a company £315,000 for serious breaches of its rules of conduct. Elkador Finance Ltd, based in Bournemouth, failed to prove claimant data was legally obtained, despite clear requirements set by the regulator.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/m...aims-companies

[pault52]

Re: CAP on CMCs -Cutting costs for consumers in financial claims – Consultations – GO

thanks you please keep us updated

[pault52]

Re: CAP on CMCs -Cutting costs for consumers in financial claims – Consultations – GO

Claim 4 you ltd north Mersey business centre woodward road
want 900 pound fee of me the Halifax contacted me direct by phone not them and now want this fee is there any redress ?

[Lippylou29]

Re: CAP on CMCs -Cutting costs for consumers in financial claims – Consultations – GO

I receiveed mt refund of halifax they rang me got all the imformation from me claim4you are looking over 40% of it ..I calculated 30 % of ir and send it to them ..There now threat court action .anyone had this problem ???



want 900 pound fee of me the Halifax contacted me direct by phone not them and now want this fee is there any redress ?[/QUOTE]

[EXC]

Re: CAP on CMCs -Cutting costs for consumers in financial claims – Consultations – GO

I receiveed mt refund of halifax they rang me got all the imformation from me claim4you are looking over 40% of it ..I calculated 30 % of ir and send it to them ..There now threat court action .anyone had this problem ???



want 900 pound fee of me the Halifax contacted me direct by phone not them and now want this fee is there any redress ?

[/QUOTE]

Did you sign a contract and letter of authority with claim4you?

[afterimage]

Re: CAP on CMCs -Cutting costs for consumers in financial claims – Consultations – GO

terrible i got fleeced by claims for you as i offered a payment plan after splitting up from long term relationship
then threatened ccj as missed one payment

[Amethyst]

Re: CAP on CMCs -Cutting costs for consumers in financial claims – Consultations – GO

Results Updated 17 Nov 2017

This response follows the Claims Management Regulation Unit’s consultation on proposals to place restrictions on the level of fees that regulated claims management companies (CMCs) can charge consumers for financial claims.
The consultation response document explains how the responses received shaped our conclusions, and announces our intention to:

• Ban upfront fees in relation to PPI and other financial claims
• Ban any charges to a consumer where it is identified that the consumer does not have a relationship or relevant policy with the lender
• Require CMCs to ensure that all cancellation charges are reasonable and to provide consumers with an itemised bill setting out details of what the cancellation charges relate to

The new rules will come into effect on 1 April 2018.
Files:

• Consultation response, 291.2 kB (PDF document)

Annex A – New measures
The revised measures the Claims Management Regulator will introduce under the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules are as follows:

All financial services claims
• CMCs will be required to ensure that all cancellation charges are reasonable and to provide consumers with an itemised bill setting out details of what the charges relate to
• A ban on any charges to a consumer where it is identified that the consumer does not have a relationship or relevant policy with the lender
• A ban on any upfront fees being charged to a consumer


The following measures will not be made mandatory through the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules, but are indicative and we encourage CMCs to adopt them:

Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) claims only
• A completion fee of 20% (Excl. VAT) of the net amount of the final compensation awarded per individual PPI claim

All other financial claims (including Packaged Bank Account (PBA) claims)
• A completion fees of 25% (Excl. VAT) of the net amount of the final compensation awarded per product for all other claims in the financial services sector (including PBA claims)