Consumers warned off CMC subject to multiple complaints over poor practices

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

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • John wordsworth says:

    IHAVE NOT RESEIVED MY REFUND MONEY OF £495 after a lot phone calls which have been recored

  • John Covey says:

    In January 2017 I had a phone call from Claimsline Direct offering to checkout my bank Santander for mis sold PPIs within a few days paperwork was sent which I filled in with banking and loans history. On checking my forms I was assured that I had a good case for at least 10 to 12 cases. I paid the required £495 which I was told would be returned when compensation was paid less the 25% admin fee. Since then I have been fobbed off until the website was closed down with the message “Gone into Administration”

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.


Jeff Zindani

The growth game – better to buy than build?

A law firm without a growth strategy is like any business that fails to plan for the future. It may continue to thrive in the short term but in the long term it is unlikely to succeed.

Preparing your staff for returning to the office

A recent story hit the headlines that CEOs were struggling to get their employees back into the office following the lifting of Covid-19 restrictions.

Litigation funding: Maturity and mergers

The general industry consensus is that multiple new entrants will continue to enter the litigation funding market, attracted by what they perceive as the potential gains and the lack of barriers to entry.

Loading animation