Having just listened to and seeing the paperwork relating to a motorcycle theft claim a colleague of mine has been perusing against MCE since February, I wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole.
Their opening stance was an aggressive declinature of his legitimate claim. When he disputed the reasons for their denial of his claim, they bombarded him with some long words and some important looking documents, none of which were relevant. As he works in the industry he was able to knock them back, document by document, word by word. It’s my honest summation that someone without the patience (or the knowledge) might well have failed.
Despite having batted back MCE’s spurious attempts not to indemnify him, they still declined. This left him with no choice but to approach the Financial Ombudsman Service, FOS, for a resolution.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/
The FOS were easy to deal with, reasonably efficient and (importantly) up to the moment of making their ruling, completely evenhanded. To cut a very long story short, FOS ruled a month or so ago in his favour, overturning each of MCE’s incorrect objections, importantly on a basis and reasoning that can be seen as ‘fair’ in the FOS’s eyes. To use FOS’s own words:
Having failed to deny the claim and having effectively been fined (8% interest on the claim amount plus an additional monetary levy) by the FOS, MCE are now trying to play stupidly with the settlement amount. My colleague has had no choice but to go back to FOS for yet another ruling. FOS are more than willing to take the matter on again.
Their opening stance was an aggressive declinature of his legitimate claim. When he disputed the reasons for their denial of his claim, they bombarded him with some long words and some important looking documents, none of which were relevant. As he works in the industry he was able to knock them back, document by document, word by word. It’s my honest summation that someone without the patience (or the knowledge) might well have failed.
Despite having batted back MCE’s spurious attempts not to indemnify him, they still declined. This left him with no choice but to approach the Financial Ombudsman Service, FOS, for a resolution.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/
The FOS were easy to deal with, reasonably efficient and (importantly) up to the moment of making their ruling, completely evenhanded. To cut a very long story short, FOS ruled a month or so ago in his favour, overturning each of MCE’s incorrect objections, importantly on a basis and reasoning that can be seen as ‘fair’ in the FOS’s eyes. To use FOS’s own words:
We make decisions based on what we think is fair, taking into account the unique circumstances of each case we receive.
Having failed to deny the claim and having effectively been fined (8% interest on the claim amount plus an additional monetary levy) by the FOS, MCE are now trying to play stupidly with the settlement amount. My colleague has had no choice but to go back to FOS for yet another ruling. FOS are more than willing to take the matter on again.