24th April 2012
734 “Stinking Badges” cancelled
Recently we highlighted concerns over the seemingly unchecked proliferation of claims management companies and noted that "the financial services industry is going through one of the most radical overhauls ever seen yet while all this is going on, the more 'Wild West' the legal system is becoming and one must question whether the MoJ is turning into a version of "Rock Ridge" where the town is out of control with no Sherriff".
So it was with a certain sense of 'Schadenfreude' that I note an FOI request has confirmed that the Ministry of Justice has shut down some 734 firms in the year to the end of March. This represents almost 20% of this toxic, parasitic industry of 'pushers'. And to cope with flushing out the rest of the 3,018 PPI and Whiplash fuelled 'Tapeworms" the staff tasked with doing it at the MOJ are being doubled.
The FSCS reckons that 75% of claims came from this source and the FOS almost 50%.
Only yesterday I had a call from a claims management firm (0207 627 9502) asking me if I had been miss sold PPI insurance. This seems to have breached the Telephone Preference Service barrier too.
I am not alone in being cold called. As Harry Katz noted:
"Not only e-mails, but phone calls and text messages. There has even been a stall in our local shopping mall with a 'representative' chasing shoppers down the road haranguing them to make a claim.
This is just redolent of the 'Compensation Culture' which has become so common. With regard to whiplash for example the lawyers and the Insurance companies are also complicit.
We all know about the lawyers; but the insurance companies get kick backs from car hire firms and repair garages. Doctors are involved - from both sides. They earn from the 'injured' and from the insurance companies who often want claimants examined. Hospitals also now charge a fee for those admitted as a result of a car accident in the knowledge that they too can cream off something from an insurance company. So there are a multitude of snouts in the trough.
And what is underlying it all that has helped to encourage this venality? Well I guess it began in earnest with the 'pensions mis-selling' review and was further encouraged by the FOS and FSCS. Now I'm not saying that in principle these are not worthy institutions, but as ever the law of unintended consequences comes into play and as so often in trying to 'do good' you merely let the feckless, the venal and the plain crooked off the leash".
For these firms 'Ethics" is a county north of the Thames. I could not put it better and hope that 2012 will see a further demise in these firms and more "Stinking Badges" reclaimed.
Comments (2)
"(1)A person is in breach of this section if he
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)A representation is false if
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading."
It is about time these false claims were treated as the crime they are.
Peter Turner 24/04/2012 09:24
1. Thus far I have not had claims companies chasing me so my comments were made from what I hope is a neutral standpoint.
2. It is now widely recognised that many of these institutions are a long way from perfect so why get hot under the collar. Surely a not so polite invitation for then to Go forth and multiply will save the intended target a great deal of trouble and aggravation. The alleged complainant can then be contacted directly to establish the true situation.
3. Please dont get me started on Effics. Yes this is a perfect example of when they are lacking, but unfortunately yet again we have our Regulator and their acolytes on this topic not only running with the ball, but taking the whole playing field. We now have vegetarian, Guardian reading, cat loving CND members burnishing their halos and behaving as if they have found a new religion. It seems to escape them that in their purist view no one is ethical least of all those who govern us from Westminster downwards. At the mundane level they cannot accept that more often than not Ethics boils down to a matter of opinion. We dont need lecturing or educating to know when something is Ethical or not. CMCs are a clear case in point as is adultery. But are we going to get our knickers in a twist if we drive at 80 on the motorway? The whole topic has become like Global Warming if you dont embrace it all you are a heretic bound for then deepest regions of hell. Anyway there are a whole lot of things that may not be ethical, but are perfectly legal. So is this just another attempt like TCF for the Regulator to have a catch all?
Harry Katz 24/04/2012 10:34
Not yet registered?
Please complete this form to join our community