Scottish Provident SelfAssurance - Missold?

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

You have related my experience to this complaint and yet you are well aware that a S166 has absolutely nothing to do with this complaint.

You said

addedvaluebob wrote: »

I have .....S166 reviews.

I merely pointed out that you do not seem to have the knowledge consistent with a person who would be deemed to have sufficient expertise to carry out a section 166 review.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

You constantly judge cases based on a few lines from a poster and draw the inevitable conclusion that 'you will lose'

It is clear from all the posts I have shown above, which are from less than five per cent of the total I have made, and many of which are nothing to do with this matter, that you know that this statement is untrue. It is also clear, since I have just pointed out those posts, that you make the untrue statement knowing full well that it is untrue.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

I can't be bothered to quote all the times you have posted this in response to cases about which you know nothing.

Because you can't

addedvaluebob wrote: »

the FCA and their forerunners all recognised that the general public had a problems distinguishing between mortgage broker, financial adviser, and independent financial adviser particularly when they could be tied for mortgage but not for the sale of the attached policies and vice versa.

They also recognised that prior to 14 January 2005 they did not regulate the sale of general insurance.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

You do not know for certain the status of the person who recommended the policy and yet have judged the case as absolutely being outside any regulatory remit.

Clearly the person selling the policy was not working for the lender. Nobody assumes if you go into a bank or building society you will be speaking to a mortgage broker.

It was not sold by the insurer because the insurer did not have its own salesforce.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

You accused the OP of being a liar

I did NOT accuse the OP of being a liar. That is why I said it was fanciful.

(Text removed by MSE forum Team) he says

addedvaluebob wrote: »

You constantly judge cases based on a few lines from a poster and draw the inevitable conclusion that 'you will lose'

when, for the reasons shown above, I have regularly shown where I believe a case, as presented, seems to have merit.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

addedvaluebob wrote: »

You clearly represent companies to whom people on this forum may complain

As far as I am aware none of my clients has ever been complained about on this forum. Possibly because the only complaints about PPI they ever seem to receive come from the companies you represent - and invariably go into great detail about how a policy that never existed was missold.

The bottom line is that people can work out if you have posted a complete pile of .... in an attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with you and your anti consumer bias

Yes - they can decide if my guidance for those whose cases seem to stand a reasonable prospect of success is "anti consumer bias".

And they can decide if you are attempting to shout down me, Marty_Hopkirk, nasqueron and anybody else who disagrees with your biases.

I expect you to come back and repeat your false statements. That will not make them true, though.

Marty_Hopkirk

addedvaluebob wrote: »

I never recommend any company. .

The companies I know want nothing to do with this site (said that many times before as well.)

I wonder why?

Marty..

addedvaluebob

Try applying some imagination to the problem.

You know, the same imagination that you applied to your PPI complaints that you were mis-sold when you are an expert in contract law who managed to be repeatedly mis-sold PPI despite signing the terms and conditions.

Marty_Hopkirk

@addedvaluebb

Below is an extract from one of your CMC friends, can you explain what a contingency fee is? I can assure you it would be destroyed by an abitrator if was challenged. I'm no Financial expert, but contractually is the polar opposite of fair.


FTR FEES 3.1 No fees will be charged to you in respect of an unsuccessful claim. Where a claim is successful, FTR will charge a contingency fee representing no more that 25% plus VAT at the prevailing rate (currently 20%) in respect of the redress/compensation recovered on your behalf.The contingency fee of 25% plus VAT is calculated before any applicable tax payment / deduction of which you are liable. Under no circumstances will you be required to pay more than this amount. Under no circumstances will you be required to pay more than this amount.


Marty...

Marty_Hopkirk

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Try applying some imagination to the problem.

I would rather apply fact and the regulations, but thanks for your advice.

Marty...

addedvaluebob

Just to answer the following point

I can't be bothered to quote all the times you have posted this in response to cases about which you know nothing.

Because you can't

Here's a few

I am wondering firstly if I have a claim for mis selling

'In view of what I have said above, I do not think you will be surprised to learn that I do not think so'.

'That would suggest redundancy cover was appropriate - which weakens your argument'

'So you have said nothing that indicates a missale'.

And to the same poster who was paid £9,000 after the above comment

As I said - nothing (s)he told us indicated a missale. We can only go on what we are told.

And in defence of a company where the complaint was upheld apparently this was the borrowers fault

Of course it is possible that the borrower gave the wrong answer but that would not be the broker's fault
.
'A complaint that the adviser did not consider the need for life cover is unlikely to succeed. Whilst this sounds harsh and it is worth investigating, be aware that the evidence suggests you will not be successful'.