Angry with bank. Wrong advice received. £4k cost to me.

ILW

Only if they close deals.

grey_gym_sock

ok, or "pre-salesperson" ... but the point is not "advisor" or anything implying they give advice.

GMS

TrickyDicky101 wrote: »

What utter tosh! I can see why you would like every mortgage to be on an advised basis - it would guarantee an income stream for mortgage advisers such as yourself!

I, like many, have no need for assistance or paid for advice which would simply increase the cost to me of buying a property.

Wouldn't necessarily gove advisers liek me an income stream. Banks could still deal directly. Only difference is added protection for the consumer.

GMS

Jimbo1976 wrote: »

GMS

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with you that advised sales should be the default option for the vast majority of borrowers apart from those financially sophisticated enough to opt out, I don't understand your beef with the FSA over Tesco.

The consultation period for the Mortgage Market Review closed in the spring and we eagerly await the final rules. The latest consultation paper proposed banning non advised sales. Unless the FSA has a radical change of mind it will publish rules banning non advised sales. However a) it hasn't published the new rules and b) the rules won't go into force for 12 months anyway. So Tesco applied for authorisation to carry out non advised sales under the current rules. If and when the rules change, it will need to change its distribution method.

Fair point but common sense would suggest a lender would implement the new rules so as not to require any changes when new rules are implemented. Unless they are aware of a change.

george_d

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

the most obvious rule change would be to ban calling somebody an "advisor" when they are not. "salesperson" is the correct term.

This is absolutely the fundamental problem.

Seems a simple rule now. If you go to a bank and talk to a customer advisor, completely ignore what they say since thay are unqualified, and it's is not their position to give advice.

The term advisor is very poorly assigned in this instance.

The bank have come back to me, and suggested there is nothing they could do. I reminded them there is definitely something they COULD do. Whether they will or not is of course a different question.

We now have some decisions to make about what we do, and how we proceed. Ultimately the bank will have lost my custom. Even if they respond favorably to my complaint, it will take alot to restore what they have cost me. My loyalty is completely lost.

Perhaps now is the time to look at the likes of First Direct for current account banking, and benefit from their new customer offers.

Thrugelmir

george_d wrote: »

The term advisor is very poorly assigned in this instance.

If you didn't ask the right questions regarding your existing circumstances. Then you wouldn't of received the precise answers.

Wasn't asked. Simply asking, we want to move house, what can we do.

You based you decision on a general customer adviser. Rather than the specialist mortgage advisor who deed give you all the correct information when you discussed your position in detail.
Many areas of business are extremely complex. That's why people become specialised.

george_d

Thrugelmir wrote: »

If you didn't ask the right questions regarding your existing circumstances. Then you wouldn't of received the precise answers.



You based you decision on a general customer adviser. Rather than the specialist mortgage advisor who deed give you all the correct information when you discussed your position in detail.
Many areas of business are extremely complex. That's why people become specialised.

And why a bank should NEVER offer you talk to someone without expertise. As a result of the bank cutting costs and trying to be efficient, they are causing themselves more hassle in some areas. Either sell mortgages and do it properly, or don't.

The mortgage advisor we have been talking to at the branch is as p***ed of as we are that someone has disrupted her products and information provision. In my profession, if someone offered advice/information which they were not eligible to give (by way of qualification/experience/position etc) then I would be seeking for them to be disciplined.

Yes, I could have not taken what was advised to me as anything at all. But then what was the point in the bank putting someone infront of me who could do nothing more than give me a leaflet.

george_d

In fact, furthermore I think I could easier demonstrate the statements given were "advice".

We asked "Are there penalties since we are currently in a fix?" Answer "You are long term banking customers with us, and so there will be no fees payable.

That very much suggests a calculated response in answer to an informed question.

In my view I was provided advice from an unqualified person. The only thing letting me down in this, is that nothing was written down.

TrickyDicky101

Qualifications are not the be-all and end-all of professional existence: in my own profession as a Chartered Accountant, I have met some similarly qualified individuals who are completely inept and should never be let near a set of financial accounts. On the other hand, I have had the privilege of working with people who have no formal qualifications and yet have some of the finest accounting and taxation minds I have ever come across. Qualifications often just show you were in the right place at the right time and you were able to pass whatever exams were applicable at the time.

george_d

I'm in complete agreement. Hence why I earlier mentioned being qualifies by experience, position, authority, or indeed Prof qualification.

I also am an accountant, and have the same view of people with qualifications who give us a bad name, and those without qualifications who are worth much more.

The same is true of degree students and in all walks of life. The letters after your name simply improve the odds of you being good.