Unfair Credit Direct

lcorbin

:jI wasn't exactly cold calling, we saw and advert and contacted UC. Does this still mean that the Barristers cannot carry on? If not why would they risk their reputation ? in what seems to be total scam ?

If it is the agreement that they will refund you if not successful there has to be some kind of policy to hold monies to refund the client? If the MOJ can allow this to go on then what credibilty do they have ?

This has got to be bordering on Fraud, especially as in December the ruling was made about producing agreements and Marshall has consisitently told everyone that their agreements are near completion knowing full well that the cases would not carry on and having no intention of refunding anyone.

ILW

You lot would have done better to use the money to actually pay back some of what you borrowed.

lcorbin

Why bother reading this section if all you want to do is be judgemental about situations you have no understanding of ? I suggest if you cannot offer anything constructive then dont say anything at all. You are not helping anyone and have no right to judge anyone. Be careful getting of that horse it is a long way down.

dunstonh

lcorbin wrote: »

Why bother reading this section if all you want to do is be judgemental about situations you have no understanding of ? I suggest if you cannot offer anything constructive then dont say anything at all. You are not helping anyone and have no right to judge anyone. Be careful getting of that horse it is a long way down.

The problem is that honest people don't go looking for loopholes to avoid meeting their responsibilities. The claims companies prey on consumer greed in offering something that is too good to be true.

Whether you like it or not, it is how the claims companies make their money. If everyone was honest (or not so gullible in many cases), then claims companies wouldnt be there. That is not being judgemental. It's how claims companies make money.

ILW

lcorbin wrote: »

Why bother reading this section if all you want to do is be judgemental about situations you have no understanding of ? I suggest if you cannot offer anything constructive then dont say anything at all. You are not helping anyone and have no right to judge anyone. Be careful getting of that horse it is a long way down.

please tell me of a situation where you believe is is valid to use a company to try to get out of repaying money that you have borrowed and spent. I can think of none.

Alpine_Star

ILW wrote: »

It is very difficult to con a totally honest person.

I don't know about that.

Banks didn't seem to find it too difficult in conning plenty of honest people into PPI policies that were either not wanted or worthless.

dunstonh

Alpine_Star wrote: »

I don't know about that.

Banks didn't seem to find it too difficult in conning plenty of honest people into PPI policies that were either not wanted or worthless.

Do you think the staff that sold it were being dishonest and believed they were conning people?

marshallka

dunstonh wrote: »

Do you think the staff that sold it were being dishonest and believed they were conning people?

I would think that lots of them did know they were ripping people off Dunstonh and worded any questions being asked about these polices in a very clever way as to not make them dishonest as such.

I bet the banks had lots of complaints years ago about single premium PPI's and mostly the same complaints but going back they most probably got away with fobbing people off that they have no comeback. There must have been some staff who worked it out but continued selling these type policies.

I would say the bank's staff have their first duty to the client and their first duty is to act in the clients best interest. IF they do not then they should be held responsible for it TBH. Is it in the clients best interest to put them in "needless" more debt when already in debt?

Saying that the products were there to sell for the bank and anyone would have thought that products on sale by a bank had already passed the "best interest of the clients" part... obviously not.

The greed of the banks also.

Alpine_Star

dunstonh wrote: »

Do you think the staff that sold it were being dishonest and believed they were conning people?

Systemic mis-selling - not to mention systemic complaint mishandling - of the scale of PPI doesn't happen in error.

dunstonh

I would think that lots of them did know they were ripping people off Dunstonh and worded any questions being asked about these polices in a very clever way as to not make them dishonest as such.

I don't know. You have to remember that most of them dont have the skills or knowledge and are kept in the dark by their employer and told only what the employer wants to tell them. You will find most of them honestly dont realise what they are doing. Just that they have been told to do it.

The environment is sell sell sell but I would reckon that you guys are of a higher knowledge on the product than the average bank clerk. The blame is further up the management ladder. Not the staff at branch level (generally).