LloydsTsb PPi Grabbing

dunstonh

You could also include the period when this site used to recommend SCARPs and had the post office version as a best buy. That came very close to backfiring big time.

societys_child

Brains64 wrote: »

Okay, I tell you what JuicyJesus, I'm willing to believe that what you are saying here is the case , however, in fairness to both Martin Lewis and to yourself as well as dunstonh, I will be more than happy to say that you are right if you can show me one occasion....just one, including advice touching on the inqury/point of the OS (just to keep on topic) where Martin Lewis has given advice to the public that was legally or factually incorrect, can you??, whether it's what people (thick or otherwise) want to hear or not isn't the issue, the issue is whether or not Martin Lewis is credible, show me where he has shown that he is less credible than dunstonhand

So that's two occasions then

I'll concede you the point, straight up, no bull, I really will be the first to you say you were right, over to you:).

Waiting to see what happens next . . .

Brains64

magpiecottage wrote: »

Probably the bank charges case - he said they were unlawful and the Court said they were not.

He didn't quite ever say that all bank charges were illegal, what he was doing was quite rightly encouraging customers to challenge any charges banks put on them if they seem disproportionate or harsh rather than assuming the bank almighty is always right, eg, if charges are punitive and leave someone in severe hardship that is illegal, customers are protected by law in that way and charges made by banks should not be disproportionate to the offense, I think you'll find that still stands.

Martin was simply encouraging people to question the charges that banks have incurred on their accounts which they still should, he didn't ever say that ALL charges were illegal, all the courts did was clarify the position so that banks could protect themselves better against false claims and customers didn't get the idea that they could just claim a refund for charges in all cases, if you feel that your bank has disproportionately charged you for an unplanned overdraft etc, you can still query it and you could still get a refund, I myself got a refund from my bank recently for charges which I argued were punitive, so none of what you say here has shown that Martin was wrong, it just means that the banks position is stronger than it was and that it's harder to get a refund because the court has made clear the circumstances in which a customer can make a successful complaint.

PS

Brilliant effort magpie but alas no cigar:D

dunstonh wrote: »

You could also include the period when this site used to recommend SCARPs and had the post office version as a best buy. That came very close to backfiring big time.

You'll have to do a lot better than that I'm afraid dunstonh, best buys and recommendations are hardly legal matters, they are just views, opinions etc, they don't say anything about Martins credibility in terms of his knowledge of the world of finance.

dunstonh

He didn't quite ever say that all bank charges were illegal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/banking/5211917/Martin-Lewis-on-how-to-reclaim-bank-charges.html

In that article he says: "So forgive my unabashed support. My view is simple; financial justice is paramount and these charges are unfair and unlawful."

You'll have to do a lot better than that I'm afraid dunstonh, best buys and recommendations are hardly legal matters, they are just views, opinions etc, they don't say anything about Martins credibility in terms of his knowledge of the world of finance.

Regulated firms are being fined left right and centre over SCARPS. This site had a period when it recommended SCARPS. You cant move the goalposts. You included factually incorrect information. The risk of SCARPS was understated. Thankfully, we persuaded him to remove them from the site before it went pete tong.

GhIFA

Brains64 wrote: »

You'll have to do a lot better than that I'm afraid dunstonh, best buys and recommendations are hardly legal matters, they are just views, opinions etc, they don't say anything about Martins credibility in terms of his knowledge of the world of finance.

Which is where this entire "challenge" you set falls down, because that is all Martin can offer. You will always be able to bat off any examples given by claiming the above, and to try and compare what he does with the regulatory framework within which Dunston and myself have to operate is pointless.

He's not bound by the same regulation as IFA's - he is a good consumer commentator, but that is the extent of it. There is no comeback on him for any poor information given out, other than some damaging publicity, and it can't be compared to regulated financial advice.

sava05

Thanks to Martin Lewis I got all my bank charges back and he gave millions hope and idea's also for reclaiming PPI and other products. He is the best I am afraid, no body else had this idea. He rules.

Brains64

dunstonh wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/banking/5211917/Martin-Lewis-on-how-to-reclaim-bank-charges.html

In that article he says: "So forgive my unabashed support. My view is simple; financial justice is paramount and these charges are unfair and unlawful."

Out of context, he means the charges where they are disproportionate and cause hardship are illegal, not all of them.

dunstonh wrote: »

Regulated firms are being fined left right and centre over SCARPS. This site had a period when it recommended SCARPS. You cant move the goalposts. You included factually incorrect information. The risk of SCARPS was understated. Thankfully, we persuaded him to remove them from the site before it went pete tong.

So, let me see if I've got this right, because of that mistake on his website here (which I'm not even sure would have been purely down to Martin Lewis) you are claiming that we can trust YOU over HIM right??:rotfl:

Brains64

GhIFA wrote: »

Which is where this entire "challenge" you set falls down, because that is all Martin can offer. You will always be able to bat off any examples given by claiming the above, and to try and compare what he does with the regulatory framework within which Dunston and myself have to operate is pointless.

He's not bound by the same regulation as IFA's - he is a good consumer commentator, but that is the extent of it. There is no comeback on him for any poor information given out, other than some damaging publicity, and it can't be compared to regulated financial advice.

If he ever gave out information that was libelous or illegal of course he would have to answer for it.

[Deleted User]

Brains64 wrote: »

If he ever gave out information that was libelous or illegal of course he would have to answer for it.

"Libellous or illegal" is hardly the "poor information" referred to in GhIFA's post.

This thread has run and run for no reason.

GhIFA

Brains64 wrote: »

So, let me see if I've got this right, because of that mistake on his website here (which I'm not even sure would have been purely down to Martin Lewis) you are claiming that we can trust YOU over HIM right??:rotfl:

You're the only one that seems to think that it has to be an either/or - and as has been pointed out, it's a disingenuous comparison to say the least. You've taken this thread off in an even more pointless direction than it had already gone......