mvr, market value reduction

whiteflag_3

jem16 wrote: »

Why do people not take responsibility for reading documents and making sure they understand them?
QUOTE]

because they are to long, over complicated and full of jargon. And perhaps they trust their advisor to keep them right.

Heres a question for you -Why are these forums full of self righteous ******* who rather than helping victims of banks/building society salesman prefer to use these forums to demonstrate how ( apparently) clever they are?

whiteflag_3

jem16 wrote: »

Dunstonh is correct and it would be wise to take note of what he is saying. He is not being argumentative - he's trying to help you.

correct about what?

dont make me laugh - re read the thread hes done nothing but slag them off and make false accusations.

I dont understand you at all.

Thrugelmir

whiteflag wrote: »

or perhaps a simplification of financial products and the sales literature. You are obvously very lucky that you know it all when it comes to financial products but dont knock thse that are not so fortunate.

Not knocking anyone.

However there has to be a line drawn, if the opportunity was not taken to ensure everything was correct at the outset. It was drummed into me from my first days at work the old Inland Revenue saying "Ignorance is no excuse".

Thats precisely why cooling off periods were introduced.

whiteflag_3

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Not knocking anyone.

However there has to be a line drawn, if the opportunity was not taken to ensure everything was correct at the outset. It was drummed into me from my first days at work the old Inland Revenue saying "Ignorance is no excuse".

Thats precisely why cooling off periods were introduced.

(if your investment drops in the cooling off period what do you get back if you cancel)

yep and if everyone was as smart as you, dunstonh wouldnt have a job.

And as he appears to have a job I can only conclude that not everyone is as smart as you and also i think that in the real world alot of people trust their advisor and dont feel they need to read 22 page post sale documents.

Thrugelmir

Heres a question for you -Why are these forums full of self righteous ******* who rather than helping victims of banks/building society salesman prefer to use these forums to demonstrate how ( apparently) clever they are?]

People comment on what they read, the facts. In a professional manner. Its not judgemental its observational. An opinion.

The fact you've resorted to playground name calling isn't necessary. There are better ways of getting your point across.

garethwilliams_2

Yes I have worked for 2 large finance companys but within both of these employees my role never was to specialise within bonds and T&C's etc. I also never printed out the T&C's, had to know what they all meant and what all the jargon meant - an assumtion made there by others because I have worked within the finance industry.
I was trained to sell loans and credit cards where a script was used and had to be word perfect. I was also taught about compliance to the FSA regulations and how not to breach them with personal recommendations, misleading infomation etc and what could happen if these were breached. I had training on DPA, money laundering, objection handling and also trained on what our product was so I was able to give correct infomation out.

Within our scripts we said we were sending out X,Y and Z but the scripts never went into the cats !!!! of what what in these documents. It wasn't our job to know or to tell - we just had to say you'll get these documents etc


A agree with whats been said about T&C's - they are long winded, jargonated (if thats a word!) and hard to understand for joe bloggs so most peole don't read them - just listen to what the person who is selling them says about it and promises it'll do.

dunstonh - We have not had a suitability report - just saying again as you seem to have missed that...... again !

Whiteflag - your totally right - with all the forums I have been a member of, I have never come across some people who just seem so plain rude and quick to make assumptions - unbelievable :mad:

At school there needs to be re-education as to personal responsibility in life

Thats right, school needs to be educating youngsters now on these WP fund policys so when we get older we don't become irresponsilbe in life - is that what your getting at, because of this thread me and my wife have no personal resposibility in life - bearing in mind you don't know us ?
Am I reading that right or have I got the wrong end ofthe stick ?

jem16

Thrugelmir wrote: »

At school there needs to be re-education as to personal responsibility in life.

Don't get me started on that one!

Personal responsibility is still being taught in schools but neither today's children nor their parents seem to think it applies to them.

Two weeks I had a letter from a parent saying;

"Dear Mrs .......

....... couldn't do his homework last night as he two Halloween discos to go to."

jem16

Rollinghome wrote: »

You say you were given two documents, one of 9 pages, the other of 22 pages, which presumably you understood every single word of. Good for you.

No I didn't understand every word written. Some of it did not apply to my funds so it didn't matter. I did, however, make sure I understood the bits that did matter by asking questions.

The best piece of advice my father gave me was to read everything you are being asked to sign and if you don't understand it then ask.

I think some people here need to be just a little less sanctimonious and perhaps even a tiny bit more sympathetic.

So you want people to be told there is a chance of having a complaint upheld when there is clearly not as far as the suitability of the product is concerned?

whiteflag wrote: »

(if your investment drops in the cooling off period what do you get back if you cancel)

And if your investment goes up what do you get back?

yep and if everyone was as smart as you, dunstonh wouldnt have a job.

Neither would you.

i think that in the real world alot of people trust their advisor and dont feel they need to read 22 page post sale documents.

I trust my adviser implicitly but it won't stop me reading all the documentation and asking questions.

whiteflag wrote: »

correct about what?

That the product they asked for is exactly what they have been given.

Thrugelmir

garethwilliams wrote: »

Thats right, school needs to be educating youngsters now on these WP fund policys so when we get older we don't become irresponsilbe in life - is that what your getting at, because of this thread me and my wife have no personal resposibility in life - bearing in mind you don't know us ?
Am I reading that right or have I got the wrong end ofthe stick ?

You've got the wrong end of the stick. As we're not discussing your choice of product.

Whiteflag - your totally right - with all the forums I have been a member of, I have never come across some people who just seem so plain rude and quick to make assumptions - unbelievable :mad:

Yet Whiteflag is the one being rude to other forum posters.

The responses you are getting are not necessarily personal opinions. But in a way, professional views based on the information you have provided.

dunstonh

dunstonh - We have not had a suitability report - just saying again as you seem to have missed that...... again !

Really? Even though I remarked in my post that you say you havent got it.

Whiteflag enjoys nothing more than creating arguments and destroying threads. We know what to expect from him so his responses are not a surprise. What is your excuse?

Hello!!!!!! listen DH they didnt get it - get in the real world it was never issued

Or they chucked it away or have lost it. No evidence to say what happened to it one way or another. That is just an assumption by you.

correct about what?

Correct about the product. Correct about Aviva servicing and correct about not jumping to complaint too quickly as it now appears that Aviva servicing is the issue as the product meets the objectives.

dont make me laugh - re read the thread hes done nothing but slag them off and make false accusations.

I suggest you read it again. I was critical of the decision to go to compliant without knowing the facts especially when the OP came to the board to ask for advice and then ignored most of it.

I make no apology for that. Had the OP responded to the questions asked, we could have identified the issues and point them in the right direction. Now that some of the details asked for have been found, its clear that the jump to complaint was wrong and the wrong person is being complained about.

That person will now have to carry that complaint around on their permanent record. It doesnt matter that they work for a bank/building society salesforce. That is not the issue of this thread. Its a complaint on their file because someone couldnt wait 10 minutes to check things first.

There is nothing on this thread that has been posted that suggests a mis-sale. Just incompetence from Aviva on the servicing relating to a post sale transaction that the adviser was not involved in. That is where the complaint should be going.

Whiteflag - your totally right - with all the forums I have been a member of, I have never come across some people who just seem so plain rude and quick to make assumptions - unbelievable :mad:

Ironically, Whiteflag is the worst offender of those posting on this thread.

You are not far behind actually as its clear from your posts that you made assumptions that were wrong as well. You dont like the answers I have given (which have been correct). So, you have taken to being rude back. Posts on this forum have no impact beyond this forum most of the time. You take it or leave it. However, your assumption has cost an employee at a building society an unnecessary complaint on their permanent record.