A case handler's view of CMCs

A question about : A case handler's view of CMCs

I decide whether to uphold or reject PPI claims. Obviously I won't reveal more than that. I've lurked around this forum for a while, mostly out of curiosity.

I've been doing PPI for a fair while. I cannot recall a single case where a Claims Management Company has made any difference to the outcome. . I've done hundreds of cases. We have our own investigation process which we follow. We consider all the possible reasons that we might uphold a complaint.

Most of the points CMCs raise are irrelevant (some of them are actually reasons to reject a complaint), and what few relevant point they raise would have been considered anyway.

Some CMCs are infamous. They send complaints to the wrong place. They commit regular data protection breaches. They litter their complaint letters and questionnaires with random product names, account numbers, contradictory information and meaningless sentences.

Having said that, it's CMCs that get people to complain, and that's what keeps me and lot of people in work.

Best answers:

• I am very happy for anyone to be in employment but can you please tell me the point of this thread.
  In particular
  'I cannot recall a single case where a Claims Management Company has made any difference to the outcome'.
  How would you know because you didn't know anything about the complainants knowledge prior to them discussing this with a CMC or a bloke down the pub. I don't doubt your belief but the logic seems slightly skewed.
• I see the CMC apologist is alive and well.
• I see the apologist for the financial services industry is still out there.
  My question is to the OP. How would he or she know anything about the complainants circumstances prior to the complaint being written.
  Perhaps it would be time for this forum to ask all the people who represent companies and have an interest in turning down complaints to
  name the companies they work for and represent, because there seem to be more of them than genuine posters offering advice and support
• Why would complainants circumstances be needed for a PPI complaint ?
• CMCs are a known "scam" as they do nothing you cannot do yourself and take a huge chunk of refund. A lot different to IFA helping people who want to avoid hard sales in their local bank lol
• In cases where a balance of probability decision has to be made, then these tend to look at the credibility of the two sides. If the one using the CMC has made loads of allegations that have been shown to be incorrect, then the credibility of that person is shot.
• I don't think you're accusing me of anything, but just to be clear - I am NOT advocating fraudulent complaints.
  In that particular case I don't think the complainant was doing anything fraudulent either (though I can't be certain what went on between him and the CMC). If I had to put money on it I'd go with sheer incompetence; nobody bothered to work out what the guy was actually complaining about and so the CMC just sent a standard template letter.
• No - not suggesting you are fraudulent at all.
  However, the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2014 require a firm to check a complainant's story before presenting a complaint.
  If they simply fabricate a complaint when they know if is, or may be, untrue of misleading, is dishonest and, according to section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, is Fraud.
  Yet the FCA allows both CMCs and the public at large to do it with impunity.
  I am not talking about honest mistakes and I do not hold with the view that it is incompetence. The CMCs hold themselves out as professionals. The fact that, as you say, they are incompetent is simply a further demonstration of their dishonesty.