We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
compensation for missold shares
Comments
-
none of what you have said has anything to do with what Jarvis have done or not done.
I've said elsewhere in this thread, Jarvis have found themselves with dodgy business partners twice."how many of your clients know your track record, profitability, client retention, disputes with clients and etc, "
None of their business...... You have some very strange criteria for understanding business.0 -
They knowingly sold unsuitable investments in short.
It is not their job to decide what is suitable or unsuitable.The law says that they had to make restitution, bust as they were broke the FSCS scheme steps in.
The law says no such thing and Jarvis did not make restitution and they are not insolvent and therefore the FSCS would not step in. You seem to be mixing your companies up again.I've said elsewhere in this thread, Jarvis have found themselves with dodgy business partners twice.
They are not partners.My criteria in the money business are very much now to do with trustworthiness as well as competence, and were I contemplating using your services (which I'm not because I find you rather high handed), then how well you looked after your existing customers with figures attached would be my criterion. If you had a track record of disputes, losing clients, losing money and so on, I would find that compelling. Your reluctance to disclose these things (lack of transparency) is informative.
Perhaps you should focus on the investments.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Like I said, zey ver only processink orders.
I dont get the not learning, keep being stupid bit, how do you work that out?
Dodgy ethnocentrism and prejudice aside, I got the word's straight from the horse's mouth (that would be you) in post 12:You should read Martin's splendid blog piece about the right to be stupid or something like that.
I don't understand the FTSE100 really, do you?
Where you state that you have a right to be stupid and prefer than approach to actually bother to learn about things?0 -
Like I said, zey ver only processink orders.
I dont get the not learning, keep being stupid bit, how do you work that out?
If they were only acting on your instruction and were not giving advice, "zey ver only processink orders" is a perfectly valid thing to say. It's only if they gave advice that they have any requirement to look out for your interests.
You most categorically do not have the right to go execution-only, do no research and then claim compensation if it goes pear-shaped. You do have the right to be stupid, but you don't have the right to blame everyone else when it comes back to bite you.
At any rate, Martin is wrong, and playing to the gallery with that article. MSE gave up being a site for anyone except the thickest of the thick a long time ago.I buy from plumbers, butchers, metalbashers, printers, supermarkets..., and you know what, I really don't properly understand what they do. Things are generally ok, it doesn't involve 100pages of smallprint, and if things go wrong then they generally get put right. I'm comforted by consumer legislation which creates an environment where most businesses are better off when they treat the customer decently. It's practically impossible to find the same stance in the money business.
That's because food and printers are very different from financial products, where an understanding of how they work and the terms of their purchase is key to their purchase and successful use. That is as it should be - there is no reason that people who DO do research and want to increase their knowledge should be restricted in their choices so that people like you can go in blind and suffer no adverse consequences from their own idiocy.
Anyway, plumbers are more analogous. If you'd consulted a plumber (i.e. professional) to fix your pipes and as a result your sinks all backed up and sprayed sh*t all over the kitchen then you could most certainly blame the plumber and get him to fix it. But if you go down to B&Q and buy a load of stuff to do it yourself, bodge it badly and get the same end result, you have nobody to blame but yourself.
You chose the latter option.urs sinserly,
~~joosy jeezus~~0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards