Motor home as investment?

jamesd

Cornucopia wrote: »

It's an issue that is of interest and importance to me as someone who runs a website, campaigns on a slightly controversial issue, designs and copy-edits websites for other people, and contributes to various forums.

I used to run a medical forum in the US. I got the contract to do that for a major online provider after the previous person declined to stop questioning the professional competence of a specific doctor, who appeared not to be acting in any way improperly, other than disagreeing with the person. I like to know what I can and can't do as well.

At times I've reported my own posts the the MSE team for their consideration of their comfort level, most recently last week. So far I don't recall a case where they expressed discomfort with my writing after doing this.

Cornucopia wrote: »

1) What is meant by "scam"? The dictionaries have a reasonable consensus on: "a dishonest scheme; a fraud". I wouldn't want to be accusing anyone of that without reasonable cause. It's unfair

People are allowed to be unfair. When discussing possible investments where a substantial part of the return comes at the end the risk of that not happening is something that should be considered, particularly if there's a proposed final value that is greater than the after-depreciation value of the asset that is supposed to be securing the investment. I think that it is not unreasonable for someone to hold the opinion that this is a dishonest scheme and express that view. If nothing else, leaving room for someone to form that opinion suggests that the scheme's workings aren't explained to potential investors well enough to eliminate the concern.

Cornucopia wrote: »

the forum rules specifically prohibit libel. Whether it's technically defamation in the meaning of the Act is a related, but separate issue.

Since libel is written defamation the two are inextricably and tightly linked.

While I don't think the post was defamation, it was negative, critical and a range of other things that don't have the legal and forum rule implications that defamation and libel have.

Cornucopia wrote: »

2) Should we automatically assume that everything that everyone says here is an opinion, even if it has the syntactic structure of a fact? It's an issue that besets most "serious" forums, alongside the huge variations in subject knowledge that posters have.

In general, yes. Forums aren't in general original sources of facts but rather places for discussing them and having opinions that may or may not include links to verifiable facts.

Cornucopia wrote: »

One of the recurring issues for free speech on the Internet is the problem of anonymous writers commenting on real people and real situations. I doubt that we've landed on the final, ideal approach to this yet.

I agree that we haven't, though in general substantial false accusations aren't a big deal very often. Though there can be consequences. Consider for example something in my own experience, where a named individual who was in a leadership role in a charity described me as a teenager because I hadn't provided a bio to use on the charity site. After being hired for a new job I found discussion of that between those considering hiring me, before there had been consideration of interviewing me, considering whether my supposed age might be an issue. My work for the charity was a critical factor in me even being considered for the job.

Cornucopia wrote: »

It's interesting reading the legislation, though, because for me it is too soft. (Presumably older legislation was tougher, and they've gone too far the other way).

The previous legislation an common law had made England the defamation claim choice of venue worldwide. Whenever practical claims would be relocated here due to the ease of claims. I don't think that the new law has gone far enough in suppressing the use of threats to squelch the expression of opinions, since it still allows SLAP techniques and the related practice of meritless complaints. It's a considerable improvement, though, particularly in the protections for web site operators.

masonic

Cornucopia wrote: »

I just think you're wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion. I have my own opinions, but for the sake of respect I will keep them to myself.

Yes, however it renders all of your posts pointless to me, and vice versa...

I'm glad that we agree on something.

jamesd

Cornucopia wrote: »

If stock photos are an indication of deceit in advertising and on the Web, we should all just pack up now. Nonsense, I'm afraid.

The photograph was accompanied by text that in part claimed "I'm Laura at UnbeatableHire. Our ... we ... we'll". That appears to be a deliberately made false claim that the individual in the photograph is at UnbeatableHire. Individuals will place differing emphasis on the significance of knowingly made false claims in advertising materials.

Cornucopia

All advertising contains falsehoods of some kind.

You might think that imposing a requirement for 100% accuracy would be a noble thing to do, but I'm not so sure.

atush

You are either incredibly naive, or you just like arguing. For arguing's sake.

I am starting to smell a troll about.

jamesd

I do not agree that all advertising contains falsehoods of some kind. Consider as examples the widespread advertising here of other content on the MSE site.

Were the motorhome site regulated by the FCA it'd be breaching their guidance in the first sentence on its page, where they ask about savings when promoting an investment product. They proceed to make many comparisons between savings and their product, all of which could be taken to imply that their product is as safe as savings.

The site mentions a "guaranteed 30% return". This breaches the Advertising Standards Authority guidelines for non-FCA-regulated investments, which say in part that "14.3 If the value of the investment is guaranteed, the marketing communication must explain the guarantee". The start of 14.3 also says that "Marketing communications must make clear that the value of investments is variable and, unless guaranteed, can go down as well as up", a statement that appears to be absent from the site.

14.3 says that "The basis used to calculate any rate of interest, forecast or projection must be apparent immediately" while there appears to be a notable absence of such clarity on the site.

The ad asserts in what is claimed to be testimonial that it is "an investment secured on a quality motor home by way of a copper bottomed chattel mortgage" and under the ASA rules for testimonials "Claims that are likely to be interpreted as factual and appear in a testimonial must not mislead or be likely to mislead the consumer". Yet a motorhome has substantial and rapid depreciation so an assertion that a chattel mortgage provides a copper-bottomed degree of protection for capital is false.

I'll stop there because by now it should be readily apparent that the site complies with neither the FCA nor ASA requirements.

masonic

I'm actually somewhat in agreement with Cornucopia that the invention of a fake employee for marketing purposes is not, in and of itself, the sort of deception that should lead anyone to infer this is a scam. However, this fake employee was introduced into the discussion for amusement purposes by bowlhead and I don't think it is material in the mind of anyone who expressed their opinion that this is a scam.

My own reasoning, to pick up one of the salvageable points of earlier discussion, is that the marketing can be considered deceptive because it would never pass regulatory requirements for products marketed to ordinary consumers. Cornucopia has pointed out that this company is not regulated, which of course it isn't, presumably because, like other unregulated schemes, it has undertaken not to operate in the retail consumer market. I would suggest that the simple act of marketing to retail consumers while being unregulated is a deceptive practice.

Furthermore, I contend that the regulatory framework is there to define minimum standards that should be considered acceptable when marketing products. It is obvious that if the FCA believes all regulated firms must adhere to these rules, that they are necessary for the ordinary consumer to be treated fairly. It is also evidenced from the similarities between the regulations that the FCA imposes and the regulations imposed by Trading Standards and the OFT. The difference is that the FCA regulations deal explicitly with specific issues affecting the financial industry, whereas the other regulations by their very nature are more general.

Looking first at the FCA 'Treating customers fairly' regulations, the FCA expects that:

Outcome 2: Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly.
Outcome 3: Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale.

In turn, the OFT broadly considers the following commercial practice to be unfair:

Misleading practices, like false or deceptive messages, or leaving out important information.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284446/oft979.pdf

It goes on to state:

For a practice to be unfair under these rules, they must harm, or be likely to harm, the economic interests of the average consumer. For example, when a shopper makes
a purchasing decision he or she would not have made had he or she been given accurate information or not put under unfair pressure to do so.

The practice of suggesting that consumers treat this scheme as an alternative place to put their cash savings is extremely deceptive and likely to be harmful to the average consumer by both standards. This product is clearly not being targeted to appropriately and the risks are not being addressed in an appropriate manner for the customers being targeted.

Citizen's advice also has plenty of information suggesting that such misleading actions are unfair and potentially illegal, including "Creating confusion with a competitors' products", which I'd argue is done by associating this product with FSCS protected consumer savings accounts.

Johnweedon

I too was very dubious about this investment, sounded too good to be true. However, I've been doing this for over a year now. FANTASTIC! My money is in the bank on the 1st of each month, my Son used the motor home for a holiday and had a great time. Now seriously thinking in investing in a second motor home. :j

le_loup

Wow!
How many names do you have?

AnotherJoe

Johnweedon wrote: »

I too was very dubious about this investment, sounded too good to be true. However, I've been doing this for over a year now. FANTASTIC! My money is in the bank on the 1st of each month, my Son used the motor home for a holiday and had a great time. Now seriously thinking in investing in a second motor home. :j

Why stop there, invest* in a dozen.

* LOL