Rejected by FOS, so can I take them to court?

Reaper

Essex_uk wrote: »

What is more surprising is that the speed at which the return comments are posted and that they are very much pro-Aviva. Now that we've established who you work for; I not bother posting anything on this 'corporate' site ever again.

We could post slower and tell you what you wanted to hear, but neither would be very useful.

Imagine I am selling a rubbish second hand car. If you buy it knowing that at a suitable price then that's fine, it is not my fault selling it to you knowing it is likely to break down as we both understand the facts. That is Aviva.

Now imagine an intermediary tells you about my car. He tells you it is very reliable and ideal for your needs. You don't know much about cars so you trust him. He arranges the sale and takes a slice of the money. That's Barclays.

I have not done anything wrong selling you that car, it is the broker's fault for advising you wrongly that it is reliable and suitable for you. Only the broker has done anything wrong.

EDIT: Beaten to the car analogy by Macca!

jem16

Essex_uk wrote: »

What is more surprising is that the speed at which the return comments are posted and that they are very much pro-Aviva. Now that we've established who you work for; I not bother posting anything on this 'corporate' site ever again.

What is not surprising, unfortunately, is your reaction at being given the facts from 2 very knowledgeable posters who have no connection whatsoever to Aviva. They have actually tried to help you and save your friend from having to pay out court costs on a forlorn crusade where you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

It seems that many posters only want replies that agree with their side of the story even though that would be the completely wrong thing to do.

colsten

OP, try to find a genuine no-win-no-fee solicitor to take on your case.

zolablue25

ChesterDog wrote: »

Somebody please tell me whether to laugh or cry at this point.

I recommend laughter. That's what I did and I felt much better afterwards.

Gadfium

Essex_uk wrote: »

What is more surprising is that the speed at which the return comments are posted and that they are very much pro-Aviva. Now that we've established who you work for;

And there, ladies and gentlemen, we have the mindset of a true conspiracy theorist. Anyone who dares to disagree with them is a "paid shill" working for "The Man". The whole forum is a front for a shadowy controlling organisation. I'm surprised that we haven't had a mention of the New World Order, the Illuminati or lizards.

Essex_uk wrote: »

Now that we've established who you work for

Who's "we"?

Essex_uk wrote: »

I not bother posting anything on this 'corporate' site ever again.

Mind the door doesn't get you on the way out!

Aretnap

Essex_uk wrote: »

What is more surprising is that the speed at which the return comments are posted and that they are very much pro-Aviva. Now that we've established who you work for; I not bother posting anything on this 'corporate' site ever again.

I don't work for Aviva.

I think you're right. Aviva are complete bar stewards and it's all their fault. I think you should definitely take them to court - sure you'd be risking a load of your and/or your friend's money, but you'd be guaranteed to win so who cares about that?

Is that response more to your taste?

(Alternatively you could take the advice of the people who actually know what they're talking about and have been kind enough to give you the benefit of their expertise for free, even if it's not exactly what you were hoping to hear)

bowlhead99

colsten wrote: »

OP, try to find a genuine no-win-no-fee solicitor to take on your case.

That one made me smile! I'm sure there are loads out there who would love that kind of gig.

It is a bit frustrating if you invest a few minutes providing comments to a new poster and then they reply with some serious misunderstandings which you take 10 minutes out of your life to try and correct with some analogies or whatever to help them understand their position, even though you fear your response is falling on deaf ears... and then the reward is them saying "you must be a corporate shill" with a promise that we will never hear from them ever again!

I couldn't quite square that response with the thanks given for the facts that saved them the costs of the doomed court case, so presumably they were only being sarcastic in their thanks and genuinely believe that they just need to go somewhere else that isn't so pro Aviva and they will be told that it's fine to go and sue Aviva.

It was a bit like the recent Standard Life thread where a couple of posters thought SL were behaving outrageously by returning funds after an investment disposal which was the exact action that 99.7% of shareholders voted for, and then performing a share consolidation which was apparently a big scam and nobody would have voted for the sale if they had known a share consolidation was planned and that they were not going to get free money out of nowhere. "where do I sign up for the Action Group!!!". On explaining how equities and companies actually work, it was obvious that I was an SL spokesman who had taken over the account of someone else to perpetuate the scam on the little old ladies and people who knew no better.

As I've been 'thanked' in over 70% of my two and a half thousand posts while only mentioning SL and Aviva in passing... it should be pretty clear that I am not getting paid by either of them and am actually doing it out of the goodness of my heart (and the glorious 'thanks' karma train, woo-woooh). However if either of those groups would like to send me a reward for telling their (former) customers or investors to stop being idiots, I will happily accept it and declare my interests.

badger09

Essex_uk wrote: »

The FOS has Sir Nicholas Montagu as a non-executive director, who was previously chairman of the Aviva UK Life With-Profits Committee - coincidence?

Apologies for this completely off topic post

Nicholas Montagu, or Nick as he preferred to be known :cool: was also Chairman of HMRC between 1997 and 2004. They were not good years :mad:

zolablue25

Bowlhead99 you must be raking it in as you are obviously paid by Standard Life and Aviva!
Seriously, thanks for all the effort you put in to help idiots like myself through the investment maze.

bowlhead99

badger09 wrote: »

Chairman of HMRC between 1997 and 2004. They were not good years :mad:

Starting rate of tax down from 20% to 10%, basic rate down from 24% to 22% and basic rate band limit up £5k, NI rate at lower earnings limit down from 2% to nil, inheritance tax threshold up £50k etc etc

All sounds rosy (apart from pension funds stopped being able to claim dividends tax credit). Of course, all these things are really done by the government rather than the chairman of HMRC himself so probably the head of the tax authority from time to time is not really to blame or to be congratulated for people's personal fortunes or the state of the economy