Goldwag: Need to protect consumers

The Office for Legal Complaints (OLC) – the body that oversees the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) – has exercised for only the second time its power to name “in the public interest” an organisation responsible for dozens of complaints and warned consumers not to use it.

In the year to 31 January 2018, LeO has resolved 69 complaints about Claimline Direct UK Limited (CLD) and received over 100.

CLD is a Swansea-based regulated claims management company that deals with mis-sold PPI. In 2016, another CMC in that city, JAS Financial Advisory Services Limited, became the first company to be named in this way.

Back in 2014, barrister Tariq Rehman was the first and so far only lawyer to named and shamed.

In a statement, the OLC said: “Through our investigations we have consistently noted that CLD have taken upfront fees of £495. They do not keep customers up-to-date or adequately progress the claims, and consumers have not received a refund of fees. CLD have not complied with our decisions directing a refund of upfront fees…

“We have concluded that we have seen a sufficient pattern of poor service from CLD, and therefore consumers need to be aware that if they use CLD it is likely that their PPI claim will not be progressed and they will lose their upfront fee.”

OLC board chair Wanda Goldwag said: “We have decided to publish because we are concerned that consumers may continue to purchase a service from Claimline Direct UK Limited that will not be delivered.

“We appreciate the impact these decisions may have on a service provider’s reputation; however, in this instance we have decided that the need to protect consumers is greater.”

The Claims Management Regulator is also looking into CLD under regulation 35 of the Compensation (Claims Management Services) Regulations 2006, which deals with investigating complaints or suspicions of unprofessional conduct.

LeO published a case study of the kind of problems it was having with CLD, citing the case of ‘Miss A’, who had four claims for potentially mis-sold PPI.

She paid the upfront fee but complained that CLD failed to progress her claims, failed to keep her updated, and failed to refund the upfront fee when asked to do so.

LeO found that CLD took no action between July 2015 and April 2016 on two of the claims, and then failed to conclude its claims process once it was confirmed that PPI had not been sold.

There was no evidence that CLD had ever made the third claim and, while the final claim had been made, CLD chased this once in two years. It treated these as having failed.

In line with CLD’s terms and conditions, the upfront fee should have been refunded. However, CLD told her that the claims were still ongoing and were impacted by the Supreme Court ruling last year in Plevin v Paragon judgement.

However, the ombudsman said the Plevin judgement was not relevant because PPI had not been sold in Miss A’s case.

Further, CLD claimed that Miss S was sent 15 regular email updates between September 2015 and July 2017, but was not able to provide copies of any of them. Miss S has said that she never received them.

“Without any evidence to the contrary, the ombudsman concluded that either these emails were not sent, or (given the complete lack of progress on the claims) any that were sent provided no meaningful update to Miss S. Either instance is poor service.”

The ombudsman’s final decision was that there had been poor service which required a remedy.

CLD was directed to refund Miss S the £495 upfront fee she had paid them, plus an additional £50 in recognition of the impact of their poor service and further to cancel any agreements they still had with Miss S, at no cost to her.


    Readers Comments

  • Anthony Bradley says:

    I too took out a claim back in 2016 and to this day have not received my initial payment of £495 back.Have telephoned cld approximately 8 times over the 2 year period only to be told that the claims are on going.Have spoken to leo and been instructed to claim back through visa comoany. Highway men possibly best way to describe them. Take a look at the history of the Director, t tells a good story. Wish I had never heard of them and hope for Directors sake I never meet up with him. Don’t trust.

  • Mrs Tanya nicklin says:

    I put a claim in with claimline direct. It was 3 years ago! I have called and called. Been fobbing me off since day 1 really disappointed in myself for paying money up front! Do not use cld!

  • Antony Sherne says:

    I paid 495 in March 2016 and have used legal ombudsman to refund my fee. They sent a legal and binding letter ordering cmd to pay. They have been fobbing me off for over a year now. I am trying to get credit card company to pay me back. Very Angry as you can imagine.


Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

The working practices of property lawyers have changed little since the 19th century. Many aspects of the conveyancing process remain offline – documents are still on paper and the data entered manually. The commercial transaction process is laborious, slow and… Read More

Blog

20 June 2018

New tech on the block: what you need to know about blockchain

Blockchain. It’s been branded as the future of just about everything, and is soon expected to infiltrate all aspects of how we live our lives from banking, to tax returns to voting. But what is it, and how can it be used in property transactions?

Read More

18 June 2018

Surely no one would do this?

It’s slightly tongue-in-cheek, but let’s see if we can design a business model that is doomed to struggle and which will ensure that we miss out on the profit and cash opportunities that come with providing high-value services at high prices in a near-monopoly situation.

Read More