Northern Rock MPPI

overhang

Nasqueron I would suspect that many of the cases you refer to were instigated by claims management companies in a speculative manner. This is an example of one entity involved in the financial sector trying to deceive another, and the prospective client. I have received calls myself from these companies claiming they can get thousands in compensation for me when I know the calls are speculative because I have kept almost all statements and documents since 1997 and know that I only had PPI on my mortgage.

overhang

Anyway, thanks to all those who have contributed to this thread, I appreciate the advice. I never thought that a simple thread regarding a successful MPPI complaint would result in being indirectly blamed for nuclear detonations, genocide and the holocaust with vivid images but hey ho, I suppose propaganda is still going in some circles.

magpiecottage

overhang wrote: »

Governments are responsible for those acts depicted in your downloaded images as you well know.

Yes - but you have chosen to lump us all together.

Many financial advisors, on the other hand, were directly and knowingly involved in the scandalous acts of the mis-selling era

Actually, they weren't. They were misinformed. In the case of pension opt outs and transfers, it was the government that promoted it in the first instance. They had posters showing somebody taking his pension in a wheelbarrow.

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?

Precisely

Personally I am involved in the field of software, so your percepion of what constitutes an Engineer is incorrect in my case

.

Oh - not a real engineer then.

overhang

So in between the personal insults you are saying that no financial advisors mis-sold products for personal gain and that they were all misinformed?

I've heard it all now.

overhang

And by the way, yes, I will be taking my pension in a wheelbarrow when the time comes. Not one penny will be subjected to an annuity.

dunstonh

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.

The FOS is very liberal minded. It assumes the best in everyone. It would never accuse anyone of trying it on. It would say they were mistaken or misunderstood.

This is an example of one entity involved in the financial sector trying to deceive another, and the prospective client.

Claims companies are not in the financial sector. They fall under the remit of the ministry of justice and are in the legal sector.

So in between the personal insults you are saying that no financial advisors mis-sold products for personal gain and that they were all misinformed?

Yes, there have been mis-sales. The two areas were pensions and endowments. In both cases, it was a minority. Pensions have a lot of sympathy with hindsight, including from the person that instigated the pension review who has said that too many people got redress who didnt deserve it. The problem was that figures used were supplied by Government and actuaries. PPI is not generally considered an adviser failing given the tiny number of adviser complaints (the cast majority of which get rejected).

And by the way, yes, I will be taking my pension in a wheelbarrow when the time comes. Not one penny will be subjected to an annuity.

An annuity hasnt been required for years. It is one option that can be highly suitable for many but not all.

Brokerwise

overhang wrote: »

I have to disagree, it is being negative. You are saying that the chances of a complaint on MPPI being upheld is negligible. You mention 99% rejection in one of your previous posts.


I have been refunded on this policy with Northern Rock from 2000 - 2006 and on a previous policy with Barclays for a lesser amount from 1998 to 2000 (I switched suppliers). By your reckoning the chances of that happening are 1 in 10000.


To all those wishing to complain regarding the sale of MPPI I would say do you research, make sure your complaint is well written, raise as many valid points as possible and do not restrict yourself. If you have 10 concerns regarding the sale, raise all 10.


You claim to be a financial advisor yet you are indirectly suggesting to people who believe they were mis-sold a product not to complain even though you know full well that they have nothing to lose by making a complaint and could in fact end up thousands better off. This does not sound like good advice to me.


Think of it positively - it keeps the thousands of claim handlers in work for longer!

You have done well - an advised sale did not even exist in 2000 so most of what your pro port is irrelevant. If they had turned your claim down and you had referred it to FOS they would have kicked it out so enjoy your cash

Brokerwise

overhang wrote: »

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

At the end of the day I made a claim, and won, easily, and would advise others in a similar situation to forego the "advice" of the so called self proclaimed financial advisors on this forum and make a claim. They have nothing to lose except some time and a stamp.

Nothing for you to lose but £500 FOS fees to someone who has done their job in a correct and proper manner

magpiecottage

Brokerwise wrote: »

Nothing for you to lose but £500 FOS fees to someone who has done their job in a correct and proper manner

£850 for PPI cases.

It is interesting that the OP says he works in software. I would hazard a guess that Northern Rock uses an algorithm that calculates the cost and, if it is below a certain level, churns out a standard letter. They can use cheap temps to do that and it will cost considerably less than paying a highly skilled person to provide a defence.

Barclays will have done the same.

The algorithm, if it exists, is flawed, though, because it does not take distinguish between PPI on secured and unsecured loans.

If somebody from Northern Rock (or Barclays) is reading this, it might be worth tweaking it.

saver861

dunstonh wrote: »

The FOS is very liberal minded. It assumes the best in everyone. It would never accuse anyone of trying it on. It would say they were mistaken or misunderstood.

... and I would say FOS is naive ... claims without any foundation are a waste of everybody's time ...

dunstonh wrote: »

Yes, there have been mis-sales. The two areas were pensions and endowments. In both cases, it was a minority.

I think you might be underestimating the issue ... certainly the broader issue. As I mentioned previously, banks and other organisations work on a strategy to make profits and to out do the competition. Those tactics have been at best in question, often mis-leading.

Sir Fred the Shred and his mates such as !!!!!! Fuld at Lehman etc put a lot of people in difficulty. Indeed in one speech before the whole collapse in 2008, Fuld was literally frothing at the mouth speaking about his quest to 'crush' the competition. Their customers were the unfortunate pawns in these power games.