Which? exposes failings with certain claims management firms

Published on

Some claims management companies are discouraging consumers from claiming back excessive bank charges or mis-sold payment protection insurance (PPI) by themselves, according to an undercover investigation carried out by consumer magazine Which?.

In August 2009, Which? made 68 calls to claims management companies posing as potential customers. 38 of the calls were about PPI and 30 were about bank charges.

Researchers who posed as customers interested in making a claim found that almost a third of firms didn’t meet Which? benchmarks.

To pass the Which? benchmark, companies had to tell the Which? undercover researcher that they could pursue the claim themselves and not suggest that they would have a more favourable outcome if they opted to use the claims management companies. They also had to be clear and honest about success rates, how they charged fees and who the company was regulated by.

Only 10 out of 38 companies asked about mis-sold PPI passed the Which? test. 12 of those that failed implied the researchers would be better off using their company rather than claiming independently, even though an independent claim costs nothing. This breaks rules set by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). The rules state that where a claim is one that falls within the province of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Housing Ombudsman Service or any other recognised dispute resolution procedure, the business must not suggest that a claimant will have a more favourable outcome if he uses the services of the business.

Which? used a combination of the Ministry of Justice rules and its own standards to check whether firms were acting fairly and reasonably, ensuring that information wasn’t misleading and advising clients of the ombudsman scheme.

A further 16 firms professed to have successfully claimed back money in 90% or more of cases without properly qualifying this, while five companies couldn’t say how they were regulated.

Advice about excessive bank charges claims was better, though some firms discouraged researchers from claiming themselves. Comments included: “You can make the claim yourself but you will have to wait till maybe next year… [we can do it] straight away””. One company didn’t mention the ongoing bank charges court case.

COMMENT ON MORTGAGE SOUP

We want to hear from you!
Leave a comment and get the conversation started.
You need to register to post, so please login or sign up below.

Latest articles

Wales and North East top BTL yield table as returns edge higher

Gross buy-to-let rental yields rose modestly in the first quarter, with Wales and the...

Buy-to-let lending rises on remortgage surge as purchase demand remains subdued

Buy-to-let lending increased sharply at the end of 2025, driven by remortgaging activity, while...

Paradigm hires Nick Delawa as business development director for London and South east

Paradigm Mortgage Services has appointed Nick Delawa as business development director, with responsibility for...

Fleet Mortgages cuts two-year fixed rates across key BTL ranges

Fleet Mortgages has cut pricing by 20 basis points on its 75% LTV two-year...

RAW Capital Partners says new UK mortgage range made strong start in Q1

RAW Capital Partners said its UK mortgage proposition generated a third of new business...

Latest publication

Other news

Wales and North East top BTL yield table as returns edge higher

Gross buy-to-let rental yields rose modestly in the first quarter, with Wales and the...

Buy-to-let lending rises on remortgage surge as purchase demand remains subdued

Buy-to-let lending increased sharply at the end of 2025, driven by remortgaging activity, while...

Paradigm hires Nick Delawa as business development director for London and South east

Paradigm Mortgage Services has appointed Nick Delawa as business development director, with responsibility for...