Lloyds unscruplous sales tactics -is this allowed??

Lily-Rose_3

mgdavid wrote: »

the argument is won when the protagonist resorts to insults.

Do you even know the meaning of the word 'protagonist?'

I don't think you do, as there IS no 'protagonist' on this thread.

The fact that you have used a word completely out of context, making no sense at all, speaks volumes. About you, AND the posters who 'thanked' you. :rotfl:

I am out of here, as I can't 'debate' with people who clearly have no clue what they're talking about.

Archi_Bald

Lily-Rose wrote: »

Do you even know the meaning of the word 'protagonist?'

I don't think you do, as there IS no 'protagonist' on this thread.

I reckon that mgdavid does very well know what the word 'protagonist' means, lest they would not have used it in this thread and context.

Lily-Rose wrote: »

The fact that you have used a word completely out of context, making no sense at all, speaks volumes. About you, AND the posters who 'thanked' you.

I am out of here, as I can't 'debate' with people who clearly have no clue what they're talking about.

Shame you left before you could explain why you think someone has used a word/term completely out of context when they haven't.

PeacefulWaters

Lily-Rose wrote: »

Do you even know the meaning of the word 'protagonist?'

I don't think you do, as there IS no 'protagonist' on this thread.

The fact that you have used a word completely out of context, making no sense at all, speaks volumes. About you, AND the posters who 'thanked' you. :rotfl:

I am out of here, as I can't 'debate' with people who clearly have no clue what they're talking about.

Protagonist - an advocate or champion of a particular cause or idea.

I think Peter qualifies under that definition. Don't you?

knack92

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

I think you mean "lo-call" charges which are typically a few pence a minute. Premium rate is much more expensive. Lloyds, the subject of the thread, had geographical numbers on their web site last time I looked.

"Lo-call" has not had any meaning for a decade. They are "business rate" numbers.

PeacefulWaters

knack92 wrote: »

"Lo-call" has not had any meaning for a decade. They are "business rate" numbers.

Yes, a better definition.

Certainly not premium rate though.

brewerdave

One way that I have found to "avoid" these invitations,is to ensure that our current account has as little as possible in it at any one time! Used to get harangued regularly as did my wife, on both branch visits and by phone call but since I took to "minimising" the balance..............:rotfl:

msallen

Peter333 wrote: »

You must all feel so chuffed with yourselves for finding ONE THING to criticize about my post!!! :T

On the contrary your entire post was nothing but ill informed emotionally charged bile. But thankyou - its posters like you that make reading these forums such fun.

Flossie.

msallen wrote: »

On the contrary your entire post was nothing but ill informed emotionally charged bile. But thankyou - its posters like you that make reading these forums such fun.

I have to agree that Peter's post WAS an emotionally charged rant, and I don't know why he went off on one, because I have seen a lot of his posts, and he is usually level headed and comes across as very intelligent. He must have been having a bad day LOL.

But I disagree about it being ill-informed, because, although he came across badly with his rant; a lot of what he said is correct imo.

Particularly these bits I have cut from his post ...

Peter333 wrote: »

they have millions of complaints every year. And they are NOT about "not being advised about what fantastic offers they could get." :rotfl:

They are about poor customer service, long branch and phone queues, excessive charges for premium rate phone calls, excessive bank charges, mis-sold PPI, poor mortgage advice, bullying, intimidating, lying, many other mis-sold insurances, high loan interest, I could go on all day.......

I do agree largely with what he said. But I do think he should have put it better, and not been so ranty with it.

I a struggling (genuinely) to fathom why or how anyone can defend banks. Seriously. And as I said, I do agree with a lot of what Peter said.

Steve_xx

Flossie. wrote: »

I have to agree that Peter's post WAS an emotionally charged rant, and I don't know why he went off on one, because I have seen a lot of his posts, and he is usually level headed and comes across as very intelligent. He must have been having a bad day LOL.

But I disagree about it being ill-informed, because, although he came across badly with his rant; a lot of what he said is correct imo.

Particularly these bits I have cut from his post ...




I do agree largely with what he said. But I do think he should have put it better, and not been so ranty with it.

I a struggling (genuinely) to fathom why or how anyone can defend banks. Seriously. And as I said, I do agree with a lot of what Peter said.

Banks are fine in general. But there are times, and I think most of us will have had at least one of these times, when you call them, ask them something and you get lost in their systems. It's probably due to the fact that you may ask something that's off the beaten track and joe average at the call centre cannot sort it out. The problem here is that call centre staff are targeted to deal with calls within x amount of rings and then once connected the agent will be targeted to close the call within a predefined time period. All of this puts immense pressure on the agent and so the result is that the customer may not always receive correct/valid information and of course it's not easy to define who said what later on if things don't go as the customer anticipated.