Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good morning,   On the 21/12/2018, I brought back my rental car to the agency and I stop on the way to the rental car park to drop off a friend (less than 10 sec). Unfortunatly, it was a prohibided area with a double red line and I received the 23/05/2019 (6months later!!) a reminder saying that I didn't pay the fine in the first place, and now the parking charge is £160.   On the 05/07/2019, an other letter before court action, at this point I called them to ask more explanations. They sent me the pictures where we can see my registration and my friend getting out from my car.   On the 19/07/2019, I received the final statement before court action. On this letter that you can see attached, they mentioned a letter dated the 10/07/2019 that I never received. We can also see a discount? why?   I read this thread, https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/408248-vcs-pcn-liverpool-airport-no-stopping/#comments before posting   I'm not british and the car was renting by my company during my time in england (who push me now to pay because they don't want problems)   I don't really know what to do to be honest, should I continue to ignore them? Or in my case I should pay because they know that I was the driver at the exact moment   Thank you in advance for your help   Baal Liv airport fine.pdf
    • Future comms gone bust, so now what? O2 have the job of passing on affected customers to Chess ICT who seem to have some connection to FC (with not much better reviews online!). O2 seem to have confidence that they will solve the issues. I don't.  All I want is to cancel the contract but is there any hope? At all? Currently my court case against them is still ongoing and due to be heard in a local court very soon. I have to wait to be told the appointed time, then call to tell them the situation. Presumably it will just get cancelled. As my contract was with FC but service provided by O2, I shall be beholden to O2 to do as I am told? I am loathe to continue paying O2 this dd which includes the cashback I should have got/be getting. Yet I can't stop because I don't want my service cut.
    • Now your confusing me.....what as a Default Notice go to do with when you entered an agreement ?The Default Notice is when you breached the agreement.   Can you post a copy of your defence here for future reference and advice.   Andy
    • On that basis, there is no restriction at all between 10am and 10pm, which on a taxi/loading bay is highly unlikely.
    • Hi, I sent a letter before action at 0928 and just now received an email letter disputing claim and dismissing it. Can you advise please? Thank you. Letter contents below:  Our Member: Elite Pre-owned Vehicles Ltd Re: VW Touareg, Reg No. WU06 GOJ We have been consulted by our above named member. We are a trade association tasked with providing advice and assistance to our above named members. We refer to your email dated 22 July. First, we note that the above mentioned vehicle was sold to you on the 15 April 2019 for the price of £5,350.00. At the time of delivery the vehicle was almost thirteen (13) years old and had an odometer reading of about 81,300 miles. Plainly, the vehicle was well used and part worn at the time of delivery and the issue of satisfactory quality must be viewed in such context. We note that the vehicle passed an independent DVSA MOT test on the 27 March 2019 with no advisories. Further, we note that the vehicle was subject to a thorough pre-delivery inspection (PDI), which revealed no issues other than those reported for which you received a suitable discount. Despite what you say, we see no cogent evidence to suggest there were any other faults with the vehicle at the time of delivery. Indeed, the fact that the vehicle has covered some 2,545 miles post delivery suggests that the issues you now complain about have developed post delivery. In this regard, we refer you to Section 19(15)(a) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. On the facts, we see no valid statutory claim against our member for refund or otherwise, as alleged or at all and your claim is hereby dismissed. We await your considered response. Yours faithfully, Lawgistics Lawgistics Ltd
  • Our picks

cjcregg

CMC charges capped at 20% by law effective July 2018

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 222 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

In fact the new regulation is even more interesting than the post above suggests.

 

There is a cap of 20% – but in fact the rule is that the CMC's are only allowed to charge "reasonable" fees are not only that they are required to provide a detailed breakdown of the work they have carried out so one can then decide what is reasonable.

 

I'm quite sure that many CMC's will simply charge the – 20% of recovered premiums. If you discover that in fact that they only send one or two letters and did very little else than I would suggest that 20% would normally be very excessive.

 

I think it is now possible to hold CMC's to account and refuse to pay the bill until you have a complete breakdown of the work they have carried out.

 

What a shame that this is come so late in the day – when the arbitrarily imposed time limit for claims is next year.

 

Incidentally, in terms of the time limit for claims, this simply relates to claims made directly to the lender and then to the FOS. In fact if you find that there is some good legal reason for saying that the PPI was mis-sold to you then you may well have good case to go to court – and it could well be worth doing.

 

For instance, if you have evidence that the PPI was sold to you because you were misled into it then you probably have six years to bring your claim in the courts from the date that you became aware or should reasonably have become aware of the misrepresentation.

 

1. Financial Guidance and Claims Bill: interim fee cap

 

On 21 November 2017, a Government amendment was passed in the House of Lords at Third Reading of the Bill providing for a cap on fees that CMCs and legal services providers can charge claimants for claims management services in relation to PPI claims.

The Government has decided to legislate for a cap in advance of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) taking over responsibility for claims management regulation and to set this cap at 20% (excluding VAT) of the claim value. The intention is that the cap would be introduced two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent which, subject to Parliamentary approval, is expected to be by March 2018. This interim cap would remain in place until the FCA exercises its own fee-capping duty under Clause 17 of the Bill.

The fee cap will be enforced by the CMR in respect of CMCs and the legal service regulators in respect of law firms. The Financial Guidance and Claims Bill will now be passed to the House of Commons for consideration. The progress of the Bill can be followed on the Parliament website where you can sign up for email alerts.

 

.

2. CMR consultation response: rule changes to be implemented from April 2018

 

On 15 November, we published the consultation response in relation to proposals first outlined in 2016 to place restrictions on the level of fees that regulated CMCs can charge for financial services claims.

The report explains how the responses received informed our conclusions, and announces the intention to implement the following measures via changes to the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2014:

 

 

  • Fees must not be charged to a client prior to the conclusion of a PPI claim. Fees for any other financial products and services claims must not be charged prior to the provision of any regulated claims management services (excluding advertising for, or otherwise seeking out) to the client.
  • A ban on any charges to a client where it is identified that the client does not have a relationship or relevant policy with the lender(s) for which a claim is submitted on their behalf.
  • CMCs will be required to ensure all charges are reasonable and to provide clients with an itemised bill setting out details reflecting the work undertaken and what the charges relate to where a contract is cancelled after the 14-day ‘cooling off’ period.
  • Amended Client Specific Rule 16: A business, unless subject to Regulation 8 of the Damages Based Agreements Regulations 2013, must permit the client to cancel a contract at any time. Any charge to the client must be limited to what is reasonable and must reflect work undertaken by the business. Where there is a contract for a financial product and services claim the business must provide the client with an itemised bill that evidences the regulated claims management services provided and how the fees have been calculated before obtaining payment details and before any payment can be taken.

The new rules will come into effect on 1 April 2018. All CMCs offering financial claims services in England and Wales are required to adhere to these rules as a condition of authorisation in accordance with Regulation 12(5) of the Compensation (Claims Management Services) Regulations 2006. Failure to adhere to the rules would be subject to enforcement action.

Further guidance will be issued in due course on the implementation of the interim fee cap and the above rule changes.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new rules are not retrospective so they only apply to contracts agreed with a CMC after the start date which is apparently 10 July of this year – 2018


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...