01254454012

AIMS REVIEW/RECLAIM are a bunch of tossers & losers without any scruples . They claim to be based in Blackburn, but actually based out of costa del la crime. The MOJ & FOS are onto them, their licence will be revoked in due course. Watch this space.., What comes around goes around. Imagine being proud of working for such a shambolic company & oufit. Would you employ someone of their elk & lack of ethos, who pry on the elderly? At a glance from the postings on this site, you can spot an AIMS in-house employee a mile away, same [***], just a different day. Roll on the MOJ & FOS, no doubt thickshit Tom has looked those abreviations up & choked!!

Thank you so, so, much.  You are in Spain??  Then why, exactly, are you using a Blackburn, Lancashire, area code???  You are in Spain and not subject to UK laws so people can be scammed without any recourse to UK law.  I am so glad you started this conversation.  Now people can see the truth.

It's free money, and all you have to do is press "yes" to claim – or so say the millions of spam messages that hit mobile phones almost daily. "It's important! Our records indicate you may be entitled to £3,450 from mis-sold loan insurance! To claim reply YES to this message. Thank you!" Or "Urgent! If you took out a bank loan prior to 2007 then you are almost certainly entitled to £2,300 in compensation."

What the messages don't tell you is that the claims company will rake off about a third of any "winnings". And nor do they tell you that you can just as easily do it yourself, without having to pay a middleman.

Excessive fees and unscrupulous practices have sparked fears of a fresh debacle in the £8bn payment protection insurance mis-selling saga, as victims lose out again, this time to the voracious claims management companies (CMCs).

More than 800 such companies have sprung up in recent years to grab a share of the billions that banks are paying out in compensation. Exact figures are not available, but critics estimate that at least £1bn, and maybe up to £2bn, will be pocketed by the claims companies and the legal firms behind them.

The major high street banks say that about 45% of all the PPI claims they are processing are being sent in by claims management companies. This week Lloyds boss Antonio Horta-Osorio said one in four of the claims made against it were fraudulent, putting the bank in a rare alliance with consumer groups such as Which? who are furious at how CMCs have exploited the PPI scandal.

In a "mystery shopping" exercise Which? alleged that every one of the 17 companies it investigated were in breach of regulations. Six of the companies, including Aims Review, Challenge Your PPI, The Claims Guys, Gladstone Brookes and PPI Claimback, repeatedly told Which's investigators that they would obtain more compensation than if the victim tried doing it themselves. "Not only is this likely to be untrue, it's in clear breach of the rules," said Which?

The Ministry of Justice has regulated CMCs since 2007 through the Claims Management Regulator but is struggling to control malpractice. In December it said it was investigating 25 unauthorised CMC businesses every month and had closed down 30 websites in the previous four months. In February it said it was working with the Financial Ombudsman Service to weed out a growing number of claims from CMCs where it wasn't clear that a product had been sold. It has also highlighted cold-calling, unsolicited text messages, illegal introducers and false statements made by companies to lure consumers to make claims.

This week the MoJ warned consumers about a new scam where the callers claim to be from the ministry itself. "Scammers trick members of the public by suggesting to the person they're calling that they could be owed money – often for repayment of bank charges, PPI, or a court settlement – but first ask for an upfront payment from the consumer in order to enable them to receive the money."

In recent months, a compliance team at the Ministry of Justice probing PPI claims companies has conducted 50 audits and issued seven warnings already. An MoJ spokesperson said: "We have made it very clear to businesses that we take a zero tolerance approach to any malpractice or attempts to take advantage of consumers."

But critics say the crackdown is not tough enough. Richard Lloyd, executive director of Which?, said: "The regulatory framework urgently needs beefing up. The small team at the Ministry of Justice dealing with this are hopelessly outgunned by a mushrooming multibillion pound industry."

Which? wants CMCs to be banned from buying leads from the companies, often based offshore, that send out the spam text messages to consumers and stricter enforcement by the MoJ.

A Guardian probe of the websites offering to reclaim PPI found malpractice remains rife. Typically, the sites urge consumers to take a 30-second or 60-second test to see if they qualify for a claim. Potential claimants are presented with a form asking how much was paid and for how long, as well as the individual's contact details – not how the product was sold. Within seconds of pressing submit, we were called on a mobile number. We rarely found any mention of the claims company's cut, but were subjected to claims such as the need to act urgently, when in reality there is no time limit on claims.

Few CMCs are members of either of the two industry bodies set up to encourage better standards in the industry. Sally Bowyer, managing director of Brunel Franklin, which has handled 100,000 claims and is a founder member of the Association of Professional Claims Managers, said: "Brunel Franklin fully supports attempts to clean up the claims industry and outlaw rogue practices and operators.

"We work extremely diligently to filter out invalid claims, and almost all the cases we present to the banks are valid claims with PPI attached. We actively endeavour to be fully compliant with all the necessary legal and regulatory frameworks."
How to complain

Dig out your paperwork
Establish that you did actually buy PPI and how long you have been paying for it. Go through your files to find the loan agreement and check that PPI was added to your repayments. Or call your bank or building society and ask for a duplicate copy – there may be a charge for this.

Decide whether it was mis-sold
Was it made clear to you that PPI was optional? Does it say so in any of the paperwork you have found? Was it made clear that you could cancel it? If the payments for the insurance were added to the loan was this made clear? Would you have been able to make a claim at the time – were you employed, were you working for yourself? If you were not told that it was optional or do not believe it was made clear that you could not have made a claim, you may have grounds to get your money back.

Download a free template letter
Find one on the Guardian website at http://bit.ly/f6YSH0. Others are available on which.co.uk and moneysavingexpert.com.

Don't take no for an answer
Lenders have eight weeks to respond to your complaint. If your lender contests your claim but is unable to show evidence that you were not mis-sold the policy, ask it to reconsider its decision. If it still refuses to pay out, make a complaint.

Go to the ombudsman
In the last three months of 2011 more than two-thirds of rejected PPI cases taken to the Financial Ombudsman Service were decided in favour of consumers, so it is well worth pursuing your claim if you think it has been unfairly rejected by your bank. You can email complaint.info@financial-ombudsman.org.uk or call 0300 123 9 123 or 0800 023 4567. Complaints can take some time to be dealt with, so be patient.

   Print this

Article history
Money

   Payment protection insurance ·
   Insurance ·
   Consumer rights ·
   Consumer affairs

Business
UK news

More features

   More on this story

   A stack of credit cards

   Financial services complaints swollen by PPI claims

   Financial Ombudsman Service says it received more than 260,000 complaints in 2011/12, 60% of which involved the sale of payment protection insurance

   PPI compensation fees could hit £2bn

   PPI claims firm is hassling me for a cut of money I haven't received

Aims Reviews = SCAM

Get back to your crap job & crap Euros TOM. Stop messing with this posting site, get back on the phone and scam people, that's what you are paid to do.

You might find this interesting http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/19.htm It relates to Adam Bennetts father - I guess the need to scam people is an heireditary trate.
l

You might find this interesting too. Michael Salter is an Owner/Director of AIMS Review http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/mri-overseas-property-c162311.html?page=2#c1166518 and they also employ a number of ex MRI staff Michael Costello and Susan Chambers who are on the MRI wanted list. It staggers me that the MOJ and City of London Police dont get their fingers out.

And here's another scam the lovely AIMS Review have been up to http://www.ftadviser.com/2012/01/09/pensions/ ... aL/article.html

"B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE WALLER
Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
LORD JUSTICE THOMAS
and
SIR JOHN CHADWICK
____________________
Between:
    TARN INSURANCE SERVICES LIMITED
(in administration)

    Claimant/ Appellant
    - and -
    
    
KIRBY and others
    
Defendants/Respondents

____________________

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________

Mr Philip Marshall QC (instructed by DLA Piper UK LLP, 3 Noble Street, London EC2V 7EE) for the Appellant
Mr Francisco Xavier Rodriguez-Purcet, the fourth Respondent (and eighth Defendant) appeared in person on his own behalf and as the authorised representative of the fifth Respondent (and ninth Defendant), Outtake Limited
Hearing dates: 8 and 9 December 2008
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  continues ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The appeal from the judge's decision to refuse summary judgment in respect of the second group of claims

At the conclusion of oral argument I was satisfied that the judge was right to refuse summary judgment against Mr Rodriguez and Outtake in respect of the second group of claims (the bribery claims). Given that the Court had decided to allow the appeal from the judge's decision to grant Mr Kirby relief from sanction – so that he is debarred from defending the claims against him in the second (as well as the first) group – it was unnecessary to decide whether the judge was right to refuse summary judgment against him in respect of the bribery claims: but my provisional view is that he was.

In my view the judge was right to refuse summary judgment against Mr Rodriguez and Outtake in respect of the bribery claims for the reason which he gave at paragraphs [63] and [66] of his judgment. In order to succeed on those claims against Mr Rodriguez and Outtake it was necessary for the administrators to show that Mr Rodriguez knew that Mr Kirby had not disclosed to Tarn (or, more precisely, to Mr Bennett and Mr Hirst) the commission arrangements which he had made with Legal 4 Life. And, in that context, it is important to keep in mind that the commission payments of £50 made to Mr Kirby under those arrangements were paid by Tarn by deduction from the sub-agent's fee payable to Legal 4 Life: they were not paid by Legal 4 Life itself. There was no reason for Mr Rodriguez to assume that Tarn did not know of them. As the judge pointed out, the questions (i) whether Mr Kirby did disclose the commission arrangements to Mr Bennett and Mr Hirst and, if not (ii) whether Mr Rodriguez knew that the arrangements had not been disclosed were questions of fact which he should not decide on contested evidence on a summary judgment application.

The application for an interim payment order against STS
It will be apparent from an earlier section of this judgment that I take the view that Tarn was entitled to summary judgment against STS for the amount (£1,566,440) paid to STS under the STS Agreement. If summary judgment is entered in that sum, Tarn is not also entitled to an interim payment order in the same amount. But I am content that Tarn should make further submissions on the form of the order: on one basis or the other it is entitled to an order that STS repay the £1,566,440 which it has received.

Conclusion
In addition to the order which this Court has already made – (i) allowing the appeal from, and setting aside, paragraph 1 of the order of 2 July 2008 and (ii) dismissing the appeal from paragraph 2 of that order in so far as it relates to the Eighth and Ninth Defendants (Mr Rodriguez and Outtake) – and subject to such further submissions on the form of the further order as Tarn may be advised to make, I would order that the appeal from paragraph 2 of the order of 2 July 2008 in so far as it relates to the First, Fourth and Fifth Defendants (Mr Kirby, Mr Holden and STS) be allowed. On that basis I would make no order on the application of 26 November 2008.

Lord Justice Thomas: I agree.

Lord Justice Waller: I also agree.

Crown Copyright © "

I think we have upset Tom.  Either that or he has been sacked for admitting they are in Spain but using a spoofed UK number.

But therein lies the rub. The Spanish payments processing operation isn't vulnerable. Spain is worse than the UK in corporate governance and compliance. Hence all the boiler room scam set-ups. However, the Aims UK listed companies and assets are vulnerable because they can be investigated and wound up by the Insolvency Service and the directors disqualified and even banged up. No UK base, no MoJ licence, no credibility, no business. That's why there are so many Aims stooges pointing to Spain shouting "ignore the UK, it's all in Spain! ". Report each breach and grievance with hard-data to the MoJ and Insolvency Service.

As you say, everyone conned by this lot and it's sister companies needs to report them.  Unfortunately, not enough people know about sites like this before they are conned.  I was lucky and smelled a rat when their so called "website" was a name and telephone number on a Belfast business directory.

Do you remember the name of the directory, Nan?  There are 3 stuffed to the rafters with scam outfits and they are all owned by the same company...

Have just looked back at my post on Page 2 and it is NIUK.  It was only a 1 page thing as I recall and AIMS was in a sort of "bubble" in the middle.  Hope that helps.  The whole thing looked cheap and unprofessional.

It's all quiet on the costa del crime, maybe we have ruffled their feathers (AIMS)! Tom has most probably lost his job, not that I'm bothered. He's on the next cheapie flight to Blackburn, and no doubt he'll have his AIMS Travel Insurance in hand!

But therein lies the rub. The Spanish payments processing operation isn't vulnerable. Spain is worse than the UK in corporate governance and compliance. Hence all the boiler room scam set-ups. However, the Aims UK listed companies and assets are vulnerable because they can be investigated and wound up by the Insolvency Service and the directors disqualified and even banged up. No UK base, no MoJ licence, no credibility, no business. That's why there are so many Aims stooges pointing to Spain shouting "ignore the UK, it's all in Spain! ". Report each breach and grievance with hard-data to the MoJ and Insolvency Service.

Good morning all I hope you enjoyed your weekend, yes I am still here. Sorry I didnt reply over the weekend I was sat on the beach in Blackburn.

By the way I forgot to mention that I have never worked for Aims nor heard of them until I bumped into this thread. I work in a far better industry which is nothing to do with what you english seem to always complain about.

Sorry I just thought I would wind you up being as you are so easy to at the moment.

I do feel sorry for you in a way but in another way I laugh at how you could have been stupid enough to hand your own details over to strangers. You wouldnt give your credit card number to someone in the street so why would you over the phone?

There is no point complaining over your own mistakes.

Tom or not. Who gives a toss and you blatantly work for AIMS. However, do not under estimate the clear mission statement of 'WhoCallsMe' and the factual content of all posts. AIMS is clearly in breach of their MOJ licence & are currently being investigated. Full stop.

Ha Ha Believe me I dont know who they are or how they run and to be completely honest I dont care. I dont care if they are inbreach of their moj licence I just find it funny how you now believe that I am called Tom and work for some company I have never worked for, no wonder you get ripped off you are too gullible for your own good.

If I were you I wouldnt pick the phone up just in case you believed another company and gave them your bank details.

If you look at the MOJ guidelines, AIMS have worked out a way round it.

The payment made on the initial call is for AIMS Membership which gives a member acces to numerous cost saving benefits.

Thereafter you can agree to have AIMS RECLAIM work on PPI, Missold Mortgages, Personal Injury claims etc.

They also give access to AIMS INSURANCE who act as Insurance Intermediaries for wide range of Uk known Insurance Companies.

Basically all these services can be done yourself for free by using comparison and money saving websites. I think AIMS are morally wrong to charge for these services but having worked in Regulatory Banking, Insurance and Legal services I cannot see anything actually illegal here in their practices.