were we missold mortgage life insurance

SaRaH_3

holly_hobby wrote: »

Really ???

I suspect if so it was probably on a "without liability basis", and because the comp was less than a FOS referral fee ... which is often made on a borderline case or as a business decision.

So don't feel it was a victory for the small man in any kind, it wasn't - it was solely on what was most cost and time effective for the business.

H

You couldnt resist commenting on a complaint you know nothing about and so you have written a lot of nonsense about it. If I took any notice of your stupid advice I wouldnt have won that complaint. You claim to be professional and to be wanting to help, however you couldnt really make it in your line of work and have come here cause no one else wants you.

GMS

SaRaH wrote: »

You couldnt resist commenting on a complaint you know nothing about and so you have written a lot of nonsense about it. If I took any notice of your stupid advice I wouldnt have won that complaint. You claim to be professional and to be wanting to help, however you couldnt really make it in your line of work and have come here cause no one else wants you.

You came here looking for advice which you were given. Holly has taken time to respond and try to assist you with what she has learnt during her career.

Whether you agree with her or not it does not give you the right to attack her. No doubt had she agreed with you she would have been a superstar who willingly gave up her time to assist for free.

I hope you get the answer you are looking for but just because the answer wasn't the one you were looking for doesn't make it incorrect.

antrobus

GMS wrote: »

You came here looking for advice which you were given. Holly has taken time to respond and try to assist you with what she has learnt during her career.

Whether you agree with her or not it does not give you the right to attack her. No doubt had she agreed with you she would have been a superstar who willingly gave up her time to assist for free.

I hope you get the answer you are looking for but just because the answer wasn't the one you were looking for doesn't make it incorrect.

What that man said.

SaRaH_3

GMS wrote: »

You came here looking for advice which you were given. Holly has taken time to respond and try to assist you with what she has learnt during her career.

Whether you agree with her or not it does not give you the right to attack her. No doubt had she agreed with you she would have been a superstar who willingly gave up her time to assist for free.

I hope you get the answer you are looking for but just because the answer wasn't the one you were looking for doesn't make it incorrect.

She posted nonsense about a complaint I won, which she knows nothing about, whats helpful or professional about that.

Senior_Paper_Monitor

You do appear to be a vote of 1 on that matter SaRaH !

dunstonh

SaRaH wrote: »

She posted nonsense about a complaint I won, which she knows nothing about, whats helpful or professional about that.

We dont know the details of that complaint but she is probably right. Many firms will (in particular banks) auto pay out on small value complaints as it is cheaper to do so then to fight their corner. If we take PPI as an example, one bank until recently had been auto paying out on all PPI complaints whether there was a case to answer or not. A lot of redress gets paid out where no wrong doing has been done.

As mentioned earlier no the thread, a recommendation to cancel an investment product by a non-regulated individual is a valid complaint reason. Yet you seem to want them to do that.

lovinituk

SaRaH wrote: »

She posted nonsense about a complaint I won, which she knows nothing about, whats helpful or professional about that.

Bitter much?!

If you are that confident about it then post the details of the other complaint. My money is on holly being correct about it and that you won't post the details so you can be proved wrong (again).

holly_hobby

Well I say .... what a nasty piece of work we have here !

My comments re the provider and SaRaH's first complaint to Halifax, in which I discussed the probable underlying reason underpinning the (alleged) overturn of their decision - appears to be somewhat uncomfortable reading for her judging by her response !! ( ouch !)

Unfortuantely, the brass tacks of this, is that SaRaH hasn't heard what she wants to hear, so in anger/temper/fury has revealled a somewhat unsavoury character evidenced in her churlish replies - so I'll quite happily now leave her to wallow in her own world.

Thanks for the support guys ..... I do find her comments and reasoning quite amusing TBH ... although I'm sure they weren't intended to be so ....

Holly x

holly_hobby

SaRaH wrote: »

If I took any notice of your stupid advice I wouldnt have won that complaint.

You claimed this was an old complaint, and that through your sheer tenacity, you made the Firm overturn their original rejection .....

I KNOW I wasn't involved in that matter, although you seem to be a tad confused that somehow I was .....

Ho hum ...

Holly

SaRaH_3

dunstonh wrote: »

We dont know the details of that complaint but she is probably right. Many firms will (in particular banks) auto pay out on small value complaints as it is cheaper to do so then to fight their corner. If we take PPI as an example, one bank until recently had been auto paying out on all PPI complaints whether there was a case to answer or not. A lot of redress gets paid out where no wrong doing has been done.

As mentioned earlier no the thread, a recommendation to cancel an investment product by a non-regulated individual is a valid complaint reason. Yet you seem to want them to do that.

Its simple you dont know the details you dont comment on it, thats the professional approach. Im very happy with the successful outcome of the complaint and know the comments about it here are total nonsense. Also the second complaint is going very well too, just heard back about it. What bothers me is that people are getting unprofessional nonsense from anons here and will be put off from making a complaint that could turn out to be successful.