Northern Rock MPPI

overhang

Well Dunstoh and magpie, if I am as ignorant as you suggest then my ignorance has resulted in the return of my original investment with 8% interest per year! A far better return than any ISA or savings account over the same period. Yet despite this you are still indirectly dissuading others in a similar position to my own from complaining despite the fact they have nothing to lose.

I find it very distasteful that people who openly admit being involved in the financial industry (with all the scandal, deception and theft of recent years) can have the cheek to insult the profession of others.

roonaldo

addedvaluebob wrote: »

In reviewing any complaint they should be able to take into account a customers personal and financial circumstances, understand what employment benefits they may or not have and compare these with the situation when and if the policy may be needed to assess suitability.

I concur. PPI complaints are meant to be assessed in line with the PS10/12 guidelines issued by FSA in 2010. FOS make a holistic review of the whole sale which is virtually the same. If this isnt being done that is a failing not necessarily by the complaint handler but the firm.

You would also possibly need to understand the benefits from their pension scheme in the event of permanent disability.

I agree, but pensions are not applicable or relevant to PPI, nor are they mentioned once in PS10/12.

magpiecottage

There are rogues, and fools, in all walks of life.

In financial services, most problems actually come from incompetence, not malice.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

addedvaluebob

roonaldo wrote: »

I agree, but pensions are not applicable or relevant to PPI, nor are they mentioned once in PS10/12.

That's a failing of the FSA/FCA who have always had insufficient knowledge of financial planning as an overall concept. There were/are are wide range of policy terms and conditions and I cannot profess to know them all but I do know for certain that some policies would take into account pension benefits payable when assessing the level of payment in the event of a claim.

There were millions of policies sold by probably hundreds of different providers. Without studying each policy no-one can say what is and isn't in the game or not

overhang

Governments are responsible for those acts depicted in your downloaded images as you well know. Its like suggesting that the inventor of electricity is responsible for the electric chair or the inventor of the pesticide Zyclon B is responsible for its use during WWII.

It could be argued that the Scientists and Engineers facilitated the facilitation of these acts, but that is two steps removed from the acts themselves.

Many financial advisors, on the other hand, were directly and knowingly involved in the scandalous acts of the mis-selling era, and whilst I appreciate this does not apply to all I choose to take their advice with a pinch of salt and will do for the foreseeable future, its my choice.

When NRAM say that they have investigated my complaint and upheld it my instinct is to believe that that is exactly what they have done, however you claim this is not the case and that it was auto-upheld. Can you see why many do not trust the financial industry when these contradictions exist? Who do we believe?

Personally I am involved in the field of software, so your percepion of what constitutes an Engineer is incorrect in my case and totally irrelevant to the topic of discussion here. There are other forums if you wish to discuss more technical matters, this one is for money issues.

Nasqueron

There are a significant minority of PPI complaints detailing the complainant's vivid memory of being forced to take the protection to get a loan or CC, upon investigation these turn out to not even have PPI, these are not even prosecuted as fraud just rejected. Greed and lying is by no means the preserve of the finance industry.

saver861

magpiecottage wrote: »

In financial services, most problems actually come from incompetence, not malice.

Incorrect - or if it is incompetence then the banks etc always come out on the right side!!

Their job is to make money - as is the case in any business otherwise it will not exist. The methods utilised however often leave much to be desired. Example, Credit Card statements now have to be much more explanatory than previous because people were bamboozled and paying interest/charges/fees etc as a result. The big six energy companies have any array of tariffs ...

That was not incompetence on the banks part - that's a strategy. While it might no go under the heading 'malice', banks and such institutions can employ tactics that might be commensurate with double glazing and second hand car salesmen - being presented on glossy paper does not make it any less a tactic.

dunstonh

Nasqueron wrote: »

There are a significant minority of PPI complaints detailing the complainant's vivid memory of being forced to take the protection to get a loan or CC, upon investigation these turn out to not even have PPI, these are not even prosecuted as fraud just rejected. Greed and lying is by no means the preserve of the finance industry.

Some firms are reporting as many as half the complaints they have dont actually have PPI. Yet the complaints list all sorts of allegations as you say.

saver861

Nasqueron wrote: »

There are a significant minority of PPI complaints detailing the complainant's vivid memory of being forced to take the protection to get a loan or CC, upon investigation these turn out to not even have PPI, these are not even prosecuted as fraud just rejected. Greed and lying is by no means the preserve of the finance industry.

Two wrongs .... etc

I did say in an earlier post that I can't see why the FOS can't screen some of the more obvious 'trying it on cases', such that some form of cost is payable by the complainer on a failed complaint if they subsequently wish to pursue it.

Not that simple I know, but if I call the police about something that I know not to be true then I'd get done for wasting police time.

That said, the customer should always have the benefit of the doubt.

[Deleted User]

saver861 wrote: »

I can't see why the FOS can't screen some of the more obvious 'trying it on cases', such that some form of cost is payable by the complainer on a failed complaint if they subsequently wish to pursue it.

FOS is financed by the institutions concerned, win or lose.. Customers therefore pay nothing. There are obviously those who will abuse this knowing that it is often cheaper to pay the customer than the FOS fee. I doubt any complainants will ever be charged for "wasting" FOS time.