AVIVA's MVR ate my profit

ellenGB

I did not mention anywhere that the FOS had made a decision. Merely that they had written a letter. AVIVA responded to that letter with good news. That's the second time you have suggested that I am not honest or perhaps, rather stupid. Gives a very different impression from a description of a senior health professional.

magpiecottage

ellenGB wrote: »

I already noted several times that my key features does not mention MVRs.

Yes but repetition of an assertion does not make it true. In the absence of evidence there are no grounds on which to uphold the complaint and the circumstantial evidence is very much against you.

ellenGB

Magpie, you missed all the posts, including no 1, noting that as a result of my complaint, the FO wrote a letter to AVIVA, AVIVA rang me as a result and told me that the helpline was wrong, thoguh they would not have known that when they talked to me, and the MVR was now £20. I am happy. That's it. Problem solved. Which bit of 'solved' do you not understand?

That's the third time you claim that I'm dishonest.

2sides2everystory

magpiecottage_-_the_one_who_wishes_us_to_understand_in_this_thread_that_he_got_a_distinction_in_complaint_handling wrote:

Of course they will understand it in more detail - a bit like a doctor will be able to better understand how, say, paracetamol works than the rest of us.

How absolutely patronising. That linked document is on a public website not an intranet. It is gobbledegook because an intelligent person would see through it immediately as a document designed to obfuscate. Do you disagree ?

Explain please what on earth could be the justification of creating and Old and a New With Profits Fund "for rationalisation purposes" by separating an existing single With Profits fund and then splitting contributions from subsequent brand new "With Profits" business into an OWPF contribution and a NWPF contribution and thus mixing it with the existing business that had been "rationalised" ??

On second thoughts don't bother. My mother told me about quacks decades ago. Told me about spivs too.

browniej

ellenGB wrote: »

BrownieJ, I cannot see the contradiction and you haven't shown me which bits contradicts what. I see the same explanation using words in a different order but it's as described in post 1.

Perhaps that is the crux of the problem. You cannot see that what you say is ambiguous.

I have emboldened the problem phrases in the hope you can see what everyone is getting at.

I already noted several times that my key features does not mention MVRs.

That doesn't make sense though.

Jem16 has shown that hisher KFD does mention MVRs in Feb 2006. Dunstonh confirms this. Why would an earlier KFD have this info and yours not? This is what we are all struggling to understand.

You said in a deleted post that you cannot post attachments. Google docs allow you to upload a document and share it with others by providing a link. Would you be able/willing to do this? Or would you consider emailing it to me and I can give you an email address by pm if you like?

I have no plans to respond further unless someone defames me, i.e. claims that I am a liar, etc. And then, the response will be limited to a challenge to the allegation only.

Your posts do contradict themselves which makes people wonder what is really going on. You then delete those posts and people wonder even more.

browniej

ellenGB wrote: »

AVIVA rang me as a result and told me that the helpline was wrong, thoguh they would not have known that when they talked to me, and the MVR was now £20.

Could you just take a minute to read this through;

"AVIVA rang me as a result and told me that the helpline was wrong, " - ok they seem to be blaming the helpline at this point.

"thoguh they would not have known that when they talked to me," - who wouldn't have known and when wouldn't they have known?

magpiecottage

2sides2everystory wrote: »

How absolutely patronising. That linked document is on a public website not an intranet. It is gobbledegook because an intelligent person would see through it immediately as a document designed to obfuscate. Do you disagree ?

I would expect a reasonably intelligent person to:

1. Realise that the mere fact that something is on a public website does not necessarily mean it is intended for everybody - particularly if it is in an area intended for financial advisers
2. Be capable of understanding the document if they took the time to do so
3. Accept that if they did not want to take the time then they could instead rely on the expertise of somebody who had.

I would not expect them to simply dismiss it as gobbledegook.


Talking of public websites, have a look [URL="ttp://www.ifslearning.ac.uk/Qualifications/RegulatoryLicenceToPractiseQualifications/QualificationsForFinancialAdvisers/CeRCH1.aspx"]here[/URL].

If you think this qualification is so easy, go ahead and take it. Then you will be able to post with knowledge and authority, rather than the inane and unqualified rants that you have put on this thread.

If you want to live up to your name and show there are two sides to every story that is the least you can do.

Or have I called your bluff?

2sides2everystory

Your link doesn't work because you carelessly truncated it.

Oh bless ... look at this:

Assessment
UK Financial Regulation is assessed by a 2-hour, 100-question, multiple-choice examination split into 2 units each containing 50 questions. You must achieve a minimum of 70% to pass each unit. If you don't gain 70% in either unit within the module you will have to resit. You only need to resit any failed units.
Regulated Customer Care is assessed by a 90-minute multiple-choice examination comprising 75 questions. You must achieve a minimum of 70% to pass this module.
Regulated Complaints Handling is assessed by a 2-hour multiple-choice examination split into 2 units. The first unit comprises 50 multiple-choice questions. The second unit comprises 3 case studies each with 10 associated questions. You must achieve a minimum of 70% to pass each unit. If you don't gain 70% in either unit within the module you will have to resit. You only need to resit any failed units.
These examinations are delivered electronically with results given immediately.


So skip the mickey mouse tests - are you a Fellow or an Associate of what used to be the Institute of Bankers but now seems to be in the process of reconstructing itself like some LearnDirect course? Do you intend ever to be one ?

And wouldn't a qualification like this be more suitable for pontificating knowledgably about the rights and wrongs of the insurance industry?

magpiecottage

An interesting post from somebody who has just made an accusation of being patronising.

As I said, if it is so easy, you will have no difficulty passing it, so go ahead and do it. Unless and until you do I am perfectly entitled to argue that I am more qualified than you are.

However, there is one favour you have done us by showing EllenGB what real trolling is.

2sides2everystory

You have a rather high opinion of yourself magpiecottage.

I detect that you have accumulated one or more these frankly trivial level 3 (like NVQ3??) qualifications but that you have not committed to the real deal?

What is your highest relevant industry qualification ?