Misold PCP claims?

kolash

Registered User
Anyone looked into this? Spoke to a guy today he said I would almost certainly be entitled. Fee is 35% of any successful payout, which seemed steep to me but he said would be standard across the various providers.
 

Raiden

Registered User
I would double check the small print. With the VW scandal with diesel I started doing it but it said if they lose I could be liable for VW legal fees. I opted out in the end


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

TRJYTR

New Member
I would double check the small print. With the VW scandal with diesel I started doing it but it said if they lose I could be liable for VW legal fees.
 

jdp1962

Grumpy Old Man
It's the latest scam from the bottom-feeding claims management companies desperate to find a new way to leech off consumers and finance companies now the PPI is winding down.
 

jdp1962

Grumpy Old Man
Because they engineer false arguments to claim that financial products have been mis-sold, without giving any thought to what the alternative narrative would have been for the consumer if they hadn't taken the product. So, that person was mis-sold a PCP, were they? OK, so let's go back and force the finance company to put them in the position they'd be in if they hadn't bought the PCP. Except the only way to do that is to agree also that they would not have been able to acquire and use the car the PCP financed.

Why do you believe your PCP was mis-sold?
 

kolash

Registered User
Because they engineer false arguments to claim that financial products have been mis-sold, without giving any thought to what the alternative narrative would have been for the consumer if they hadn't taken the product. So, that person was mis-sold a PCP, were they? OK, so let's go back and force the finance company to put them in the position they'd be in if they hadn't bought the PCP. Except the only way to do that is to agree also that they would not have been able to acquire and use the car the PCP financed.
Why do you believe your PCP was mis-sold?
Well I don’t know if it was as I have not yet signed up to the full claims process. I have only shared brief details of the type of product I was sold.

There wouldn’t be any payout if there was no wrong doing.
 

jdp1962

Grumpy Old Man
Well I don’t know if it was as I have not yet signed up to the full claims process. I have only shared brief details of the type of product I was sold.

There wouldn’t be any payout if there was no wrong doing.
But you must have some idea of your own that something was wrong; otherwise why even start the process? Or is it just a speculative exercise to find out if you can squeeze a few quid out of someone?
 

kolash

Registered User
But you must have some idea of your own that something was wrong; otherwise why even start the process? Or is it just a speculative exercise to find out if you can squeeze a few quid out of someone?
Nice try
 

jdp1962

Grumpy Old Man
It's not a question of nice try. There is an entire industry out there that thrives on baseless and/or manufactured claims against financial businesses, spurred on by PPI. They feed off people who are easily led or just looking for a payout (your word) regardless of the consequences. But there are consequences to every claim, valid or otherwise, even if they're not immediately visible. Aside from the redress paid on valid claims, which they should rightly have to bear, financial businesses also have to bear the cost of defending the speculative claims. The latter invariably outnumber the former (PPI being the rare exception) and the cost is huge. That cost isn't just swallowed by the financial businesses; it's paid by everyone who buys a product from those businesses in the form of higher prices.
Also, some claims will receive payouts regardless of whether there was a mis-sale because it's sometimes cheaper for a businmess to settle than to defend. So your "no wrong doing no payout" observation is a little bit disingenuous.
Any claims company you approach will never say "well based on what you've told us, there's nothing wrong here so no point going any further". Their underlying business model is based around creating an anxiety in your head something might have gone wrong, that you might be due some money, thus inducing you to sign up, regardless of how tenuous or threadbare that possibility might be. Then they have to manufacture reasons to support that possibility, and then they'll expect you to put your signature to their statement of claim.
I deal in independent dispute resolution for my living and I have lost count of the number of occasions I've shown the evidence file from a sale to the claims management company and said "You have claimed so-and-so happened (or didn't happen if it should have done) when the point-of-sale documentation shows otherwise. Would you now like to withdraw this claim given it's clearly a pack of lies?". And most times, they say no and press on, in the hope the business will throw some money at the claim to make it go away.
So yes; it's a scam, but feel free to be part of it if you wish to.
 

kolash

Registered User
It's not a question of nice try. There is an entire industry out there that thrives on baseless and/or manufactured claims against financial businesses, spurred on by PPI. They feed off people who are easily led or just looking for a payout (your word) regardless of the consequences. But there are consequences to every claim, valid or otherwise, even if they're not immediately visible. Aside from the redress paid on valid claims, which they should rightly have to bear, financial businesses also have to bear the cost of defending the speculative claims. The latter invariably outnumber the former (PPI being the rare exception) and the cost is huge. That cost isn't just swallowed by the financial businesses; it's paid by everyone who buys a product from those businesses in the form of higher prices.
Also, some claims will receive payouts regardless of whether there was a mis-sale because it's sometimes cheaper for a businmess to settle than to defend. So your "no wrong doing no payout" observation is a little bit disingenuous.
Any claims company you approach will never say "well based on what you've told us, there's nothing wrong here so no point going any further". Their underlying business model is based around creating an anxiety in your head something might have gone wrong, that you might be due some money, thus inducing you to sign up, regardless of how tenuous or threadbare that possibility might be. Then they have to manufacture reasons to support that possibility, and then they'll expect you to put your signature to their statement of claim.
I deal in independent dispute resolution for my living and I have lost count of the number of occasions I've shown the evidence file from a sale to the claims management company and said "You have claimed so-and-so happened (or didn't happen if it should have done) when the point-of-sale documentation shows otherwise. Would you now like to withdraw this claim given it's clearly a pack of lies?". And most times, they say no and press on, in the hope the business will throw some money at the claim to make it go away.
So yes; it's a scam, but feel free to be part of it if you wish to.
Sorry I took from your tone you were just trying to be provocative.

I can see it’s a subject you feel strongly on but unfair to suggest that I am trying my luck or trying to squeeze a few quid out of anyone where it wasn’t due. Just because I don’t yet know if there has been wrongdoing does not mean there hasn’t been, nor should a genuine claim (for anything) not be pursued simply because of the alleged volume of spurious claims in the same area. Or worse, and what I think you’re saying, I shouldn’t follow it up as companies recoup the compensation paid by charging new customers higher prices. How outrageous of them but unsurprising.

I bought myself out of my PCP last year as during the lock down I found the time to review the arrangement in detail and realised what a terrible deal it actually was and there were alternative, cheaper ways to raise the same credit.

Surely your advice should have been pursue the matter myself and steer clear of the specialists.
 

jdp1962

Grumpy Old Man
No need to apologise; we can only respond to what is said. Yes, I do feel strongly about this subject, and I'm also aware my views are slightly out of kilter with general public perception and often not what people want to hear. So I'll comment just once more and then leave it there.

First of all, I'm not saying that the financial business recouping the cost of a speculative (not spurious; I didn't use that word) claim through higher prices is a reason not to claim. I'm saying that's a consequence of making a speculative claim.

You say my advice should have been to pursue the matter yourself and steer clear of the specialists. Claims management companies are not specialists; they are generalists, moving frantically from opportunity to opportunity in the hope of finding a new cash cow to keep them in business now PPI is running out. And their behaviours are of sufficient concern that HM Treasury recently brought them into the regulatory control of the Financial Conduct Authority. As for for pursuing it yourself, yes that is an option, and @Pinky1959 had already suggested it. But if you're going to pursue a claim directly, that means you need to know what the claim is for, and accept responsibility for the accuracy and truthfulness of the statements you make in support of it. Otherwise, you claim will be every bit as speculative as it would be if a third party was acting for you. That's why I asked you earlier why you thought your PCP had been mis-sold.

Your inital reply was that you didn't know and that, in effect, you were relying on the claims management company to tell you, once you'd ventured further into its process. By the way, that demonstrates exactly the business model I described - they create an anxiety followed by a fear of missing out. From your own description, you'd only given brief details of the product you had taken out yet somehow they magically knew you were "almost certainly entitled" to be compensated! Think about what they're trying to do to your head there.

Subsequent to that, you've said your PCP was a terrible deal and you could have got the same credit more cheaply. Forgive me if I say something uncomfortable and inconvenient; that doesn't sound like mis-selling; that sounds more like mis-buying. It's akin to buying a laptop instore for £500 and then finding out later you could have got it online for £450. But that wouldn't mean the store had mis-sold you the laptop; it would mean you entered into a bad bargain because you hadn't done your homework first. The time for reviewing the arrangement in detail to make sure it was the best way of financing your car was before you entered into it, not afterwards. If you didn't do that, please don't try to make someone else pay for that omission. Instead, learn from it and make better-informed choices in future.
 

kolash

Registered User
No need to apologise; we can only respond to what is said. Yes, I do feel strongly about this subject, and I'm also aware my views are slightly out of kilter with general public perception and often not what people want to hear. So I'll comment just once more and then leave it there.

First of all, I'm not saying that the financial business recouping the cost of a speculative (not spurious; I didn't use that word) claim through higher prices is a reason not to claim. I'm saying that's a consequence of making a speculative claim.

You say my advice should have been to pursue the matter yourself and steer clear of the specialists. Claims management companies are not specialists; they are generalists, moving frantically from opportunity to opportunity in the hope of finding a new cash cow to keep them in business now PPI is running out. And their behaviours are of sufficient concern that HM Treasury recently brought them into the regulatory control of the Financial Conduct Authority. As for for pursuing it yourself, yes that is an option, and @Pinky1959 had already suggested it. But if you're going to pursue a claim directly, that means you need to know what the claim is for, and accept responsibility for the accuracy and truthfulness of the statements you make in support of it. Otherwise, you claim will be every bit as speculative as it would be if a third party was acting for you. That's why I asked you earlier why you thought your PCP had been mis-sold.

Your inital reply was that you didn't know and that, in effect, you were relying on the claims management company to tell you, once you'd ventured further into its process. By the way, that demonstrates exactly the business model I described - they create an anxiety followed by a fear of missing out. From your own description, you'd only given brief details of the product you had taken out yet somehow they magically knew you were "almost certainly entitled" to be compensated! Think about what they're trying to do to your head there.

Subsequent to that, you've said your PCP was a terrible deal and you could have got the same credit more cheaply. Forgive me if I say something uncomfortable and inconvenient; that doesn't sound like mis-selling; that sounds more like mis-buying. It's akin to buying a laptop instore for £500 and then finding out later you could have got it online for £450. But that wouldn't mean the store had mis-sold you the laptop; it would mean you entered into a bad bargain because you hadn't done your homework first. The time for reviewing the arrangement in detail to make sure it was the best way of financing your car was before you entered into it, not afterwards. If you didn't do that, please don't try to make someone else pay for that omission. Instead, learn from it and make better-informed choices in future.
Your laptop price analogy is ludicrous. I think you’ve lost all objectivity as you spend your working days arguing with these guys. No need for anymore.
 
Top