Is there anything banks havn't missold?

talexuser

The problem is the wish to blame one reason or person is too simple, but at least the regulator tried to get recompense for genuine cases, albeit as it turned out not perfectly. Banks were wrong to sell with lies in some, maybe a lot of, cases. Customers were wrong not to understand what they were buying. The compensation culture fed by glossy adverts by v e r y dubious claim companies on the TV is designed to appeal to people's greed rather than need. You could say that mis-selling started the ball rolling but unfortunately all the rest does not make such pithy bon mots.

John1993_2

cepheus wrote: »

I don't believe the posters on here are not aware that the City was, and still is, major a global laundering centre, and largely immune to legal investigations.

Just about all of what you wrote was idiocy, and rubbish, but just the above will serve as an example.

We ALL have money laundering training. In my bank it's four times per year. Each time it is hammered home that we have to be a diligent as we possibly can be to stamp it out.

The penalties are clearly explained, and we understand that we'll lose our job if we are careless in following the regulations, as well as facing imprisonment.

The idea of us systematicallly setting out to facilitate laundering is just ludicrous. The fines and penalties for just failing to be zealous enough in looking for it, let alone actively carrying it out are huge. HSBC was fined over a billion pounds recently, just for its checks not quite being robust enough.

jimjames

gadgetmind wrote: »

I wasn't "missold" anything either because I like to understand what I'm buying.

And a fair proportion of those claiming they were "missold" various things are just lying chancers, which is why you see people claiming PPI misselling who never bought any, and even people who bought it and then claimed successfully on it.

Some people need to wise up and man up, big time.

That seems to be part of the problem.

Mis-buying doesn't have nearly the same ring to it and claim for compensation as mis-selling.

I could see the flaws in PPI as soon as it was mentioned to me. Wish I'd taken it out now though!

nokia1100

matttye wrote: »

Some are definitely genuine though.

There are some people who have been sold PPI because they were told it was mandatory, which is a blatant lie.

Some people will believe anything they are told over the phone. Lloyds TSB certainly did the trick of sending out new credit cards with stickers on to phone a number and "activate" them. Translation: get a sales pitch for one of these scams. The call centre worker tried the old Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (look it up) tactic. "How will you be able to afford to pay off the debt?" My response was that I wouldn't be making the purchases if I couldn't afford to pay them off today, tomorrow or in 56 days time (I've always treated a CC like a debit card but with s75 CCA protection when making purchases).
Similar tactic with identity theft "protection". I was prepared to risk it.

matttye

nokia1100 wrote: »

Some people will believe anything they are told over the phone. Lloyds TSB certainly did the trick of sending out new credit cards with stickers on to phone a number and "activate" them. Translation: get a sales pitch for one of these scams. The call centre worker tried the old Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (look it up) tactic. "How will you be able to afford to pay off the debt?" My response was that I wouldn't be making the purchases if I couldn't afford to pay them off today, tomorrow or in 56 days time (I've always treated a CC like a debit card but with s75 CCA protection when making purchases).
Similar tactic with identity theft "protection". I was prepared to risk it.

Only problem with that is that you're not very profitable for them!

Goldiegirl

John1993 wrote: »

Just about all of what you wrote was idiocy, and rubbish, but just the above will serve as an example.

We ALL have money laundering training. In my bank it's four times per year. Each time it is hammered home that we have to be a diligent as we possibly can be to stamp it out.

The penalties are clearly explained, and we understand that we'll lose our job if we are careless in following the regulations, as well as facing imprisonment.

The idea of us systematicallly setting out to facilitate laundering is just ludicrous. The fines and penalties for just failing to be zealous enough in looking for it, let alone actively carrying it out are huge. HSBC was fined over a billion pounds recently, just for its checks not quite being robust enough.

We can't win really, on other areas of the board we get derision for pointing out behaviours that look like money laundering, yet here there's some one who thinks we've got our heads in the sand!:rotfl:

bigadaj

To be pedantic the vast majority of that HSBC fine was in the us, the UK regulators are still pretty toothless. Similar to the standard chartered case with regard to Iran, it seems to be an additional tax for foreign banks in the us to be allowed to do business, with the calculation that it is worthwhile it for the business, which seems to be considered the case.

nokia1100

matttye wrote: »

Only problem with that is that you're not very profitable for them!

I can say I've never been profitable for any bank or BS (apart from their interest rate differential). Never been in debt or paid any charges. I helped someone get their commission in 2005 for selling me their CC, then someone else with the Rewards/Airmiles DUO or whatever it's called this week. There my benevolence ends.
I appreciate what you say about me not being a desirable customer - Noddle gives me 3/5, I have 3 current accounts (one with £150 OD arranged but never used) and a £26/month for 24 months mobile contract. All kept at the same address since getting on electoral roll on 18th birthday.
Hence the savings pot if I wanted a place of my own rather than rely on getting a poor mortgage deal.

markwilkinson

I will put my hand up and say that I had PPI, dunno if miss sold or not. Havnt even tried to claim it back as it was over 10 years ago.

Did I have a choice? Not sure. I was studying for a Masters Degree (biggest waste of money ever) and needed funds for further study/training. I was offered funds on the proviso that I took out PPI at £5.00 a month. Snapped their hands off.

cepheus

gadgetmind wrote: »

PPI is not addictive (other than for the scumbag claims companies and their equally despicable clients) and those who bought it had a choice. I was offered it, researched it, and chose not to take it out. If I'd instead chosen to use this insurance, then I'd have lived with this decision.

As you're starting to sound really stupid, why don't you give it a rest?

We are not just talking about PPI as you know. Borrowing on high APR is highly addictive, or even borrowing large amounts on moderate APRs leads to a cycle of debt. This was the Genesis of the Financial crisis. We have a duty to protect the financially ignorant just like children.

There is nothing stupid about the comparison. A considerable proportion (not all) of the financial industry have been involved in criminal activities, as everyone except a few with the heads buried in the sand know full well. That's why they were fined. Stop misrepresenting what I say.

The problem is that the difference between criminality and sharp practice becomes blurred the more an industry gets used to it.