Dunstonh, Moneyinepitude et al

Brokerwise

magpiecottage wrote: »

Unfortunately, FOS has jurisdiction over cases sold under The Mortgage Code if it has jurisdiction over anything else.

Because the PPI was sold as part of a mortgage advice service, and The Mortgage Code placed responsibilities on the adviser in respect of mortgages, it DOES have jurisdiction if it was sold by the same firm.

There MAY be loopholes and the case is probably defensible. However, without seeing ALL the documentation, I cannot say.

Only on cost and optionality under section 3.2 and there are no loopholes and I do not require a defence. The debate is regarding given the circumstances should FOS be able to charge £500 on a case that could never be found against my firm. I do appreciate your comments and see your points.

Quentin

So why does the above merit a charge to me as neither point could ever be proven even if my firm had told them we would shoot them if they did not take it and to ignore your bank statements or I will kill your kids pets ????

This thread is a great example of the "professional" behaviour of those in the insurance business.

The OP asks for all to comment, including those from the"other side"

Then when he gets a comment he doesn't like wrongly accuses me of encouraging "false claims", just not true yet won't retract it. And also accuses the "site" (MSE) of encouraging false claims, wrongly stating it to be a "fact"!

Then dunstonh refers to me advocating using the complaints procedure and FOS to "fraudulently obtain funds". Another lie. Where have I said that?

Then magpoecittage attempts a bit of touting for business.

Finally all this ranting about "killing kids pets"

Not good reading! What an advert for your game!

dunstonh

Then dunstonh refers to me advocating using the complaints procedure and FOS to "fraudulently obtain funds". Another lie. Where have I said that?

in post #12 you said "which is why people knowing this on MSE advise [sic] it's well worth pursuing a complaint to the FOS." in response to knowing that the firm will suffer a £550 charge for dealing with the complaint.

Perhaps I should have said you were advocating blackmail instead. However, the subject matter on this thread was about complaints with no merit. So, my response was in keeping with that theme.

Where there is a valid complaint and a firm is acting unfairly then waiving the FOS fee threat can be a good tactic. However, using the FOS fee threat against a small local firm which has done nothing wrong is ugly and undesirable and anyone doing it is doing for their own consumer greed.

Not good reading! What an advert for your game!

I would take their responses over your encouragement of fraud, blackmail, greed and your misrepresentation.

Quentin

dunstonh wrote: »

I would take their responses over your encouragement of fraud, blackmail, greed and your misrepresentation.

So now you add blackmail and greed to your false accusations!

Where does blackmail get a mention?

And greed? You are the only one to interpret advice to use the complaints procedure (as set out in all policies) to see if you get anywhere with a complaint as being greedy!

=============================================

dunstonh wrote: »

in post #12 you said "which is why people knowing this on MSE advise [sic] it's well worth pursuing a complaint to the FOS.".....

There is no typo in post 12 (which you unnecessarily and condescendingly attempt to point out!)

Brokerwise

Finally all this ranting about "killing kids pets"


humour
ˈhjuːmə/Submit
noun
1.
the quality of being amusing or comic, especially as expressed in literature or speech.
"his tales are full of humour"
synonyms: comical aspect, comic side, funny side, comedy, funniness, hilarity, jocularity;

dunstonh

Where does blackmail get a mention?

Post *12 from you describes blackmail.

And greed? You are the only one to interpret advice to use the complaints procedure (as set out in all policies) to see if you get anywhere with a complaint as being greedy!

I am saying no such thing. The FOS should be used where the person does not agree with the response and feels it is unfair. However, it should not be encouraged to be used on complaints of no basis and blackmailing companies to settle the complaint as its cheaper than going to the FOS

Quentin

dunstonh wrote: »

Post *12 from you describes blackmail.



I am saying no such thing. The FOS should be used where the person does not agree with the response and feels it is unfair. However, it should not be encouraged to be used on complaints of no basis and blackmailing companies to settle the complaint as its cheaper than going to the FOS

Post #12 is not intended tp "describe blackmail". Your (incorrect) interpretation. Though we know you have difficulty understanding post #12 from your incorrect (sic) insertion when quoting it!

We are entitled to escalate any complaint when we are unhappy with the response from the insurer.

It is up to the FOS to decide if the complaint has no basis. As far as fairness is considered, that is totally subjective - contracts have to be fair, yet anyone can challenge a clause they see as unfair, and are entitled to use the FOS adjudication service.

But nowhere have I encouraged people to make fraudulent complaints.

You certainly would have something to say were I (or anyone) to make any similar false accusations about you, why do you think you can continue?

Isn't it just that you are unhappy with the FOS system whereby customers can use them at no charge, yet you (for some reason you have not explained) don't get any the 25 "free" complaints a year?

[Deleted User]

All this arguing back and forth is going nowhere. It's like an argument about religion between religious zealots of differing faith.

Calm down lads, can't we all just get along?:D

Brokerwise

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

All this arguing back and forth is going nowhere. It's like an argument about religion between religious zealots of differing faith.

Calm down lads, can't we all just get along?:D

More interesting than replying to PPI complaints

Quentin

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

All this arguing back and forth is going nowhere. It's like an argument about religion between religious zealots of differing faith.

Calm down lads, can't we all just get along?:D

I agree.

But no-one should be expected to accept the false accusations made against me (and MSE) here by the supposedly "professional" broker brigade.

Just in case you hadn't realised the depth, the false accusations made in this thread include me advocating "blackmail", "fraud", "false claims", "lying for financial gain", "greed" and "musrepresentation".