Why not make banks foot the bill for claims firms’ fees?

Thanks for your comment Alfa. CMCs are a major source of nuisance calls and reports to the ICO show that reports about nuisance calls from PPI and accident claims make up a third of all complaints. Therefore if firms were much better at helping customers in the first place, the number of nuisance calls we all get from CMCs will reduce. We also want to see Directors of CMCs who make unwanted calls held directly responsible for their firms actions. There is still lots more to do to tackle nuisance calls, but holding directors to account we think will make a difference to this everyday menace.

Sorry Jack, but I am getting a bit fed up of the company line of ‘less’ nuisance calls and holding directors to account.

There have been thousands of experiences shared on Which? of how nuisance calls are ruining peoples lives, scams where people are being conned into parting with their hard-earned money.

When PPI has run its course, VW claims and goodness knows what else will rear their ugly heads and we will subjected to new scams. We are never going to get ‘less’ nuisance CMC calls.

When is Which? going to start listening and send nuisance phone callers the same way as nuisance doorstep callers and call for an outright ban?

Jack – You are right that CMCs are a major source of nuisance calls. Alfa has produced a long list of Conversations that refer to nuisance calls and has had a long running campaign to stop them. I was very supportive but it is time for Which? to press for action that will put an end to these calls. For some time I have been suggesting that companies that make nuisance calls should have their telephone service withdrawn for increasing periods until they learn their lesson. Furthermore, I suggest that this happens promptly rather than waiting for hundreds of thousands of nuisance calls.

To the best of my knowledge, Which? has not even pushed for marketing calls to be opt-in rather than opt-out via the TPS.

Apologies for this rather aggressive post, Jack, but if you look back at the many Convos I hope you will see that the current approach in dealing with the problem is not good enough.

In a perfect world CMCs would not exist, but they do. Also in a perfect world financial companies would say sorry here is your money back but they don’t. So in the meantime I suppose we need a sticking plaster.

Some companies already inform customers they are due a refund as I was sent a claim form by one, so they are not all bad.

Stopping CMCs calling us in the first place would be a big step but the powers-that-be are not listening to us.

Hi Malcolm, I think you’re right – in the case of mis-selling like PPI, a proactive approach from banks is clearly the better option – requiring firms to contact all those affected (for they should know this!) and actually pay them automatically. The challenge comes with other issues, where a complaints-led approach is used – and not just in financial services – for example you have a complaint about how you were treated. In those cases, how do you incentivise firms to make it easier to claim from them directly? At the moment, firms arguably make it difficult in order put people off complaining and minimise what they pay out. This can drive people to use CMCs. So – one way to make banks help people claim directly would be to require them to pay CMCs costs should an individual use them.

I see CMC’s as a bit like No Win No Fee “layers” who only take on cases they are virtually sure of winning and then scoop a chunk of the proceeds that, otherwise, might have gone to the injured party. Isn’t legal protection insurance a better solution here – granted t