Jump to content

Cliff Stanford

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. If you would care to forward this to me by email (or post it on here), I will look into it. As I said, I can see no evidence of it. As indeed it has been. You invented the bit about the cheques and the missed dates though. I get it from your two posts above. Having looked into your finances, we realised that any victory would be empiric only. If we won damages, you wouldn't pay. Lawyers are expensive. Untrue. We provide a service; There are many people here who do not see it as a valuable service and that is opinion. Nevertheless, it is a service. Cliff.
  2. No dates were missed. You appear to be living in a dream world. Under MoJ rules, we have until 12 June to process the refund. The refund was, in fact, processed today, the 3rd. I can see no evidence of your in-laws ever being told that a refund would be made by cheque. Also I can find no evidence of your in-laws having sent us a SAR, despite your previous posts. You appear to be intent on libelling my company on this and other forums with your lies. Please don't. Cliff.
  3. Your sister has been in contact with me directly. I have apologised to her for the treatment she has received. Her refund is in progress but, if her account is correct, there is no way she should have been treated in that manner. We are having the calls transcribed and we will be reviewing the training of the individual concerned. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cliff.
  4. I have absolutely no idea whether a SAR covers recordings that have not been transcribed. I'd have to take advice. Also, as SARs are usually responded to on paper, I'm not sure how we would provide the information.
  5. Yes, confirmed. All calls into and out of our call centre are recorded, as well as customer service calls. The only calls that may not be recorded are calls on lines not directly related to PPI. We retain call recordings at least six months. In practice, I'm not sure we've ever deleted a call.
  6. Yes it should have been charged in the first place. It was taken in accordance with our terms of business. We are not doctors. We do what we can within the guidelines on dementia issued by the Ministry of Justice. I don't need to deal with you; you are not a customer. You are someone who is prepared to defame our company and its officers whilst hiding behind a cloak of anonymity. As far as I am concerned, we have dealt with your parents-in-law in a totally reasonable manner and we will be providing all information as may be required to the MoJ.
  7. Have you actually read the thread? Nobody has been ripped off by "this company". I'd be more than happy to talk to Watchdog or any other investigative journalist.
  8. We didn't make it up. We believed your Father-in-law when he said he had these agreements. Now we know the circumstances and the state of your Father-in-law's health, he has been approved for a refund. The refund will be made as soon as we can be sure that a chargeback has not been issued.
  9. We will take on any claim where we can obtain sufficient documentation. We estimate an average of two to three hours' work in our back-office to process a claim. We obtain a DSAR (if necessary) to establish the relevant account details. We frequently call the customer and talk him though completing the questionnaire. We write a letter of complaint to the bank. And that's just the initial steps. There are two types of "unsuccessful". One is where there was no PPI. In this case, yes, the customer is "down" by his fee. And we are "down" by the work we have performed. This is why we try very hard to ensure that the customer believes he may have been mis-sold PPI. The other is where the bank claims that the PPI was not mis-sold. Here we have a procedure to insist that it was, involving letters and phone calls to the bank and eventually, if necessary, a complaint to the FoS. This is where I believe a CMC comes into its own: the bank is much more likely to back down to us than to the customer.
  10. We have certainly waived fees in the past where customers are in difficulty. We have an internal but unpublished policy on the matter.
  11. I have attached a copy of the terms as a pdf. They're also on our web site but I'm not allowed to post links to it.
  12. It has certainly been our experience that we have had successful claims where the bank has rejected an initial approach by the customer. Of course. By the very nature of this forum, you have highly intelligent members who are well able to argue their own case. They don't need us. In fact I'm considering adding a link to our web page to your helpful "how to" post for customers who want to go it alone. Would you have any objection to that? I'd be very interested to see that data as it would be really useful to be able to gauge our performance over time. In return, I'd be happy to make data available to this forum.
  13. You are entitled to your opinion that our business practice is disgusting. However we have never "spoofed" or "diddled" anyone and I will continue to refute such allegations. Frankly, I find the practices of the banks disgusting: they have systematically overcharged for a useless insurance; they have fiddled interest rates; they do everything they can to defend the indefensible. If the banks didn't "diddle" the customers, claims companies would not be in business. With whom are you more disgusted?
  14. We are in a highly regulated, highly competitive market. We are in business for two primary purposes: to provide a valuable service to our customers and to make money. As a side-effect, we also provide work for some 80 people in South West Wales. Being a highly competitive business, we need to be tied by the same rules as our competitors. We have seen a number of claims management companies go bust recently because they tried to rely exclusively on the success fee. The cash-flow for this model just doesn't make sense. That's what I meant by a level playing field. If, for example, the MoJ ruled that verification fees were illegal we would have to take a view on whether to stay in business. If claims management companies were closed down, it wouldn't be the customers cheering, it would be the banks.
  15. Not currently, no. It has been announced that this will be brought in later this year by the MoJ and we welcome the change. We do need a level playing field though. Cliff.
×
×
  • Create New...