MSE News: 'We will be different to the FSA'

grizzly1911

Pincher wrote: »

Effectively, the car dealership is pretending the FSA believes I should buy the GAP insurance, and the salesman cannot sell me the car unless I sign the document saying I categorically do not want GAP insurance, even though it is (seemingly) against FSA advice.



What I do object to, is, the dealership pretending the FSA is recommending an insurance by implication. This is mis-representation of the FSA/FCA's name for gain. This certainly comes under the category of MIS-CONDUCT, but NOT a crime.

Fudge ahead, FCA, I expect nothing from you.

The last car, we brought for cash, still had all the FSA compliance rubbish to go though and sign to say we weren't interetsted. In the middle of the patter also tried to sell some form of polish system to protect the paint, before sale, and infereed this was an FSA recommendation too.:mad:

I did make the point that if the paint was so poor should I withdraw from the purchase.

talexuser

grizzly1911 wrote: »

At least he didn't get the BOE job.

You're right, he was mentioned in the running. As good as Steady Eddie getting the job after overseeing BCCI! :eek:

disposalist

Being one of the ones currently getting screwed by BoI and Mr Wheatley having recently been utterly unhelpful and aloof regarding the issue (something about "it's not in our [the FSA's] remit". Who's is it then?) I'm not particularly comforted by his comments about how lovely the FCA will be for customers - he probably defines 'customers' differently to everyone else...

He said, "banks shouldn't trap their captive customers to a higher rate, so they've got to offer people some choice", so will the FCA do something about the BoI shafting their customers with a 'take it or take it' more-than-doubled tracker rate? I won't hold me breath.

(Before you have a go at me and BTL landlords here, the thread is over here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4470099)

dunstonh

Consumerist wrote: »

Whilst agreeing with much of what you say, I think you misjudge the public to some extent.

I think the truth is that most of joe public don't understand much of what goes on in the financial world and have made PPI claims simply because they just don't know whether they have been scammed or not and take a just-in-case approach. It's no different, in my view, to seeking advice about any benefits a person might be entitled to claim.

I believe there are people out there who are confused. However, when over half the complaints you get have no PPI at all but the complaints letter sent in makes all sorts of allegations, then you cannot consider that person to be confused. If they are going to allege wrongdoing and give a story of events that is total fiction, then you cannot give them the benefit of the doubt. (although the current system does).

That said, the issue was discussed in parliament a couple of weeks ago and the general consensus is that the current system is stacked too heavily in favour of opportunistic complaints which standard to lose nothing by making false allegations whilst creating a cost, often significant, to defend. A cost that is damaging companies as well being factored into the pricing which honest consumers have to pay.

campari

Regulation of all financial products? It took a while for the FSA to take on Hire Purchase. As for consumers who are not fully informed, there are many that are and they still get the 'run-around' from companies procrastinating for years in order to avoid settling. I personally found that the FOS failed to recognise failings with mortgage products that were clear cases of mis-selling and was forced to take court action as a litigant in person, yet another area that will be on the increase.

jago25_98

I think in general the change means more power to them?

BJV

Some of the references to gap insurance i have to say are factually incorrect.

Yes i agree in the insurance company will apply a 60 % rule in which to calculate if a vehicle is still economically viable.

But a repair bill of £500- £2000??? Wish it was. Modern vehicles are designed to absorb impact away from drivers and passengers. This means that even more minor accidents result in more damage. The replacement of a couple air bags alone would be close to £1000.00 Most modern vehicles now have 6 8 even ten air bags.

You then have the environmental issue of repairs a car.

Thank god for the sake of our planet things like tyre's have to be disposed of correctly.

Labour rates, raw materials etc.

So if you can get a reasonably aged car repaired after an accident for £2000 please tell me where?

And sorry if you are paying dealership prices for gap insurance more fool you!

I do however agree that car sales people should not say that they have a legal obligation to offer gap insurance.

Instead part of their duty of care would be better.

From an insurance perspective the new body is simply putting more and more responsibility on the insurer and seemingly taking less themselves.

innovate

Stop the known culprits to ever get a job in any UK financial institution again.

If you agree, you can sign a petition that will be presented to the FCA

Dear Financial Conduct Authority,

"Reckless" and "deluded" - that's what three ex-HBOS bosses have been called by a parliamentary commission.

Lord Stevenson, Sir James Crosby and Andy Hornby ran HBOS into the ground - leaving taxpayers to fund its £30bn bailout. They deserve more than a simple slap on the wrist.

Please use your power to hold them to account and ban them from working in the finance sector again.

https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/banking-bosses