Barclays rip off loan advice?

imoneyop

2sides2everystory wrote: »

They are wrong and I can tell you are not long experienced in this field.

Just because you shed the wetness behind your ears in the last few years and experienced obscene "normal" loan rates well over 10% when the base rate is at a record low does not mean you know what is normal.

Until the autumn of 2008 or maybe even later Barclays matched any other rate. You probably didn't know that. Assorted banks were putting posters in windows for loans at 6% and they were giving them quite freely too. Double digit rates were somewhat unusual until 2009 and yes, if you took one from Barclays at that time then there probably was something high risk about your affairs.

Yes something else has happened in the last five years - Wonga and payday. You think they define what is a high rate perhaps? So banks can requalify their obscenity as not quite as obscene as Payday outfits - is that your premise ?

Resits for you too I think

Still taking the shilling at First Direct, are we?

So what is it that makes you so qualified to talk on the subject when all that appears to come from your keyboard is a load of cr4p?

2sides2everystory

imoneyop wrote: »

So what is it that makes you so qualified to talk on the subject when all that appears to come from your keyboard is a load of cr4p?

What do you think it is? Was not the crap from your keyboard not mine ? Here's a clue: I know how to treat customers fairly. I know how to write the word crap and mean it so it gets seen without fear of censorship by some bloody machine or some deluded banker.

I know what is a rip off and what isn't.

Are you just another who hasn't seen what has happened in banks in the last few years or has turned a blind eye because it's easier then for you to blend in?

lippy1923

Not really sure where the debate is. The OP's SIL was offered a loan with X rate. She accepted..... what's the problem? The bank in question has done nothing wrong. What's all this nonsense about treating customers fairly?

There was no rip off because they knowingly and willingly accepted the loan.

2sides2everystory

That's the problem. You don't see the problem and in seven whole years neither does the regulator :rotfl:

You have to laugh when you look at this:

From the old FSA website (i.e. this is where they'd got with TCF by the time they decided to change the colour schemes and the payslips and call themselves FCA as of last week):
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/doing/regulated/tcf

Then look at the brand new FCA page: http://www.fca.org.uk/firms/being-regulated/meeting-your-obligations/using-external-support/fair

The key bit was actually FSA Expectation number 1:

Expectations of firms

Firms must be able to demonstrate that they are consistently delivering fair outcomes to consumers and that senior management are taking responsibility for ensuring that the firm and staff at all levels deliver the consumer outcomes relevant to their business through establishing an appropriate culture. We expect firms to:

demonstrate that senior management have instilled a culture within the firm whereby they understand what the fair treatment of customers means ...

But we know that hasn't happened and that can be easily demonstrated by the wet behind the ears banker comments on this thread. The culture has not changed one iota. So many of you are spouting caveat emptor that it defies belief.

bengal-stripe

2sides2everystory wrote: »

.....................

Have you ever tried to live up to your name "Two-side-to-every-Story"???

You have told us one side, now tell us the other side!!!

gb12345

2sides2everystory wrote: »

That's the problem. You don't see the problem and in seven whole years neither does the regulator :rotfl:

You have to laugh when you look at this:

From the old FSA website (i.e. this is where they'd got with TCF by the time they decided to change the colour schemes and the payslips and call themselves FCA as of last week):
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/doing/regulated/tcf

Then look at the brand new FCA page: http://www.fca.org.uk/firms/being-regulated/meeting-your-obligations/using-external-support/fair

The key bit was actually FSA Expectation number 1:

Expectations of firms

Firms must be able to demonstrate that they are consistently delivering fair outcomes to consumers and that senior management are taking responsibility for ensuring that the firm and staff at all levels deliver the consumer outcomes relevant to their business through establishing an appropriate culture. We expect firms to:

demonstrate that senior management have instilled a culture within the firm whereby they understand what the fair treatment of customers means ...

But we know that hasn't happened and that can be easily demonstrated by the wet behind the ears banker comments on this thread. The culture has not changed one iota. So many of you are spouting caveat emptor that it defies belief.

No, the key bit is this "but emphasise that firms must not divert attention away from focus on risks to the fair treatment of customers." - which of course you just ignore, because it negates everything that you are saying.

2sides2everystory

gb12345 wrote: »

No, the key bit is this "but emphasise that firms must not divert attention away from focus on risks to the fair treatment of customers." - which of course you just ignore, because it negates everything that you are saying.

Ah yes, pointed out like a continuing banker would ...

I said you have to laugh when you read it. Did you miss that bit? And when do we think all this was written ? And what sort of conniving person wrote it and who tweaked it just recently in such a lazy fashion? And in the intervening period since it was written do you think that any of us believe that bankers have any idea how to focus on risks other than to shed them to others and to hide behind the word and line their own pockets?

Did Marcus Agius (erstwhile chairman of Barclays) write his Financial Times letter of September 2010 to make the point you just did?

No of course not. The word "risk" does not appear. The word "culture" appears SIX times! Of course he had to resign over rate rigging inside two years from writing the letter but that's another story reflecting culture in banks :mad:

lippy1923

Just so I am clear, you are saying that all customers should be given the same rate, or they are being treated unfairly which means they are being ripped off?

2sides2everystory

lippy1923 wrote: »

Just so I am clear, you are saying that all customers should be given the same rate, or they are being treated unfairly which means they are being ripped off?

I am saying that double digit interest rates are obscene, that banks cannot be trusted to advise customers properly on risk - they say they know how but they are liars - they employ no-one in even trying to understand TCF principled lending risk any more - they would rather harvest bucketloads of sub-prime volume at biased odds like a betting shop and get asked questions and dissemble later.

GDVS

2sides2everystory wrote: »

I am saying that double digit interest rates are obscene, that banks cannot be trusted to advise customers properly on risk - they say they know how but they are liars

I'm not aware of any high street bank that gives advice of any form to non-high net worth clients any more, whether on risk or other matters. The banks lay out the facts, the customer makes the decision. This works better than the previous situation where people were advised by someone with a sales target.

- they employ no-one in even trying to understand TCF principled lending risk any more

Please state which of the six TCF customer outcomes you believe is related to lending risk, I'll explain why you're mistaken.