FOS rewards the mis-selling wrong-doers etc.

nadnad

oops yeah Garry not aimed at you sorry.

Garry_Anderson

homer_j wrote:

Sorry if you answered this already but what do you think would have happened if the FOS did not exist?

Homer - what do you think?

Obviously the public will have even less confidence in the markets and in the authorities to control a corrupt maverick finance industry.

Which is why the FOS is a Public Relations excercise - allowing corrupt businesses to keep most the profits from their 'mis-selling'.

Isn't it really nice for these crooks - keeping your money that they used to pay their wages, commission etc.

Garry_Anderson

dreamylittledream wrote:

I'd be careful rattling Garry's cage with the conspiracy theoriest tag - so far I've been likened to Alistair Campbell, Blair, a person of 'lower intellingence'

Oh and I'm repeatedly disingenuous apparantly...

I would hardly call you a straight kind of guy - anybody reading your posts can tell that

dunstonh

Isn't it really nice for these crooks - keeping your money that they used to pay their wages, commission etc.

I believe the average redress figure is around £3000 on endowment mis-selling. Commissions on endowments were around £700-£1000. Who do you think is paying the redress?

Garry_Anderson

dreamylittledream> If redress puts the borrower back in the position they would have been if they had been given correct advice (redress + surrender value = amount repaid on a capital and interest mortgage by the date of the calculation) how exactly has anyone profited?

Are you sure that you really cannot see that?

I do not believe you.

For starters - the crooks charge you for their services - duh!

Dreamer> Or lost out for that matter?

Because they would have not repaid at that rate and would be on track for completion in time.

In our case - we were also churned out of five and half years mortgage repayments.

Dreamer> Or put it another way, why should anyone benefit from the mis-selling area...life companies, adviser or consumers.

The victim must always get compensation from corrupt businesses that tried to defraud them.

The corrupt businesses should always be worse off - as should any criminal.

If you robbed a bank and werecaught - you would not expect just to give the money back and walk aay - would you?

Dreamer> The purpose of the FOS is to make good the wrong done - unless you can prove malice aforethought then why should punitive damages be awarded?

The malice was clear - they KNEW that endowment was unfit for purpose - as was proven.

Contrary to the BS propaganda that endowments could have repaid loans - the losses could actually have been worse - it was unfit for purpose.

Dreamer> This is of course a different issue to where the FOS decline cases where the redress offered is not in keeping with the spirit of putting the consumer back in the position they should have been in (retirement cases, non consecutive terms on multiple policies, oversales etc).

The redress in ALL cases is BS.

Dreamer> I would certainly not argue the FOS are truly always ensuring 'customers are treated fairly' but to argue that the whole priciples of financial redress (which are set by the FSA in the DISP manual, not the FOS) seems a little flawed to say the least!

If they treated customers fairly - they would not let the 'mis-sellers' profit from their wrong-doing.

The FOS is PR excercise for the FSA - I have officially proven them without integrity - you can see the letter from them if you want.

dreamylittledream

Garry_Anderson wrote:

I would hardly call you a straight kind of guy - anybody reading your posts can tell that

To be honest I'm slightly curious as to what you are going to call me - or anyone else who disagrees with you for that matter - next!

Incidently the misquote you are looking for is "a pretty straight sort of guy"

Anyway back to the point in hand

You have yet to articulate an argument for punitive damages as you are clearly unhappy with the principle of 'putting wrong what was right'.

Garry_Anderson

MortgageMamma wrote:

We were not getting at you garry. We were getting at roy/emma. We think the have people entering new usernames and posing sub prime questions to the board to stimulate "debate".

Sorry if you took it the wrong way.

Mamma and Nads - please answer this about Emma and Roy.

Is it only the number of postings from them - or is it the topic that annoys you - or something else?

Like - do you have evidence of similar IP addresses for the newbies?

I consider the topic most worthy myself - though have only posted one or two questions on it.

Garry_Anderson

dunstonh wrote:

I believe the average redress figure is around £3000 on endowment mis-selling. Commissions on endowments were around £700-£1000. Who do you think is paying the redress?

Methinks you take the p*ss.

We will pay at very least - three times our loan amount to the building society (maybe four times) - also they get interest on that money.

How much of that goes towards their wages?

dunstonh

We will pay at very least - three times our loan amount to the building society (maybe four times) - also they get interest on that money.

What has mortgage interest got to do with it?

How much of that goes towards their wages?

None in the case of those working for advice companies and not a lender.

dreamylittledream

Garry_Anderson wrote:

dreamylittledream> If redress puts the borrower back in the position they would have been if they had been given correct advice (redress + surrender value = amount repaid on a capital and interest mortgage by the date of the calculation) how exactly has anyone profited?

Are you sure that you really cannot see that?

I do not believe you.

For starters - the crooks charge you for their services - duh!

Dreamer> Or lost out for that matter?

Because they would have not repaid at that rate and would be on track for completion in time.

In our case - we were also churned out of five and half years mortgage repayments.

Dreamer> Or put it another way, why should anyone benefit from the mis-selling area...life companies, adviser or consumers.

The victim must always get compensation from corrupt businesses that tried to defraud them.

The corrupt businesses should always be worse off - as should any criminal.

If you robbed a bank and werecaught - you would not expect just to give the money back and walk aay - would you?

Dreamer> The purpose of the FOS is to make good the wrong done - unless you can prove malice aforethought then why should punitive damages be awarded?

The malice was clear - they KNEW that endowment was unfit for purpose - as was proven.

Contrary to the BS propaganda that endowments could have repaid loans - the losses could actually have been worse - it was unfit for purpose.

Dreamer> This is of course a different issue to where the FOS decline cases where the redress offered is not in keeping with the spirit of putting the consumer back in the position they should have been in (retirement cases, non consecutive terms on multiple policies, oversales etc).

The redress in ALL cases is BS.

Dreamer> I would certainly not argue the FOS are truly always ensuring 'customers are treated fairly' but to argue that the whole priciples of financial redress (which are set by the FSA in the DISP manual, not the FOS) seems a little flawed to say the least!

If they treated customers fairly - they would not let the 'mis-sellers' profit from their wrong-doing.

The FOS is PR excercise for the FSA - I have officially proven them without integrity - you can see the letter from them if you want.

*sigh*

Right lets take it point by point shall we?

'the crooks' charge you for their servies

No they didn't...their commision was factored into the cost of the endowment, which is included in the cost and comparative reduction in capital between an endowment and repayment mortgage. If RU89 (the official name for endowment mortgage redress) is carried out correctly, you have not lost out in anyway by having an endowment mortgage providing your surrender the policy and the the policy value and the redress to pay off a lump sum off your mortgage and convert to repayment.

Because they would have not repaid at that rate and would be on track for completion in time.

You're really not getting how this works are you?

The victim must always get compensation from corrupt businesses that tried to defraud them.

The corrupt businesses should always be worse off - as should any criminal.

If you robbed a bank and werecaught - you would not expect just to give the money back and walk aay - would you

And you are being compensated by being put back into the situation you would have been had you not been given incorrect advice.

You haven't proven corruption or malicious intent at all have you?

The malice was clear - they KNEW that endowment was unfit for purpose - as was proven.

Contrary to the BS propaganda that endowments could have repaid loans - the losses could actually have been worse - it was unfit for purpose.

We had this discussion at length in the other thread and calling everything BS does not make your argument any stronger.

The large number of mortgages that were paid off with a surplus rather destroys this particular line of argument.

The redress in ALL cases is BS.

No its not - it confirms the basic principles of law.