Misselling of bonds

Clint163

DrSyn wrote: »

So you nagged him into going to the bank.


Questions

1.Why did he not just phone or write to the bank and tell them to stop pestering him?

My husband is a busy man. He was never at home when these calls were taking place. He eventually spoke to a person and a appointment was made later in e evening.

2. Why when he went to the bank, did he not just say "no thank you" and just walk out.

Because he trusted the bank rep. there was no reason not to at this time.

3. Why did you not go with him to the bank, if he's weak willed?

He is not weak willed and very insulting to suggest. He was like every other non financial person that had no knowledge of financial products and relied on those who were.

4.Why did he not come back with the info and discuss it with you?

He did but I didn't have a clue.

5. Why if there was a penalty for cashing it in within 5 years, did he cash it in after only 4 years.

Yes, as he explained to the rep prior to the sale that he would be wanting the money to purchase property. He thought he would receive a penalty. Which products do have in their clauses but not the extent that the value was a lot less than the investment itself.

Atreyu107

The sense of entitlement that some posters have on this board is simply incredible at times.

You were fully aware that the product had an early exit charge, and yet your husband encashed the product early. The charge was thus levied, and the money you got back was less than what was invested.

In what universe do you think this is a case of mis-selling? You keep saying 'this is not about the investment, it's about the mis-selling'. What does that even mean? They are intrinsically linked. You are complaining, with zero grounds, that the investment lost money and was therefore mis-sold, but you admit the investment lost money because you ignored the terms of the product

I swear reading this forum raises my blood pressure from time to time...

dunstonh

Maybe if you actually went into fos and looked at case studies you will see that lloyds was fined 1.9 million in 2003 for misselling of bonds

.

Correct.. I refer you back to post #9. Lloyds were fined for the sale of precipice bonds on sales made between oct 2000 and July 2001. Your husband was not sold a precipice bond. He was sold an onshore investment bond.

Again in 2013 they were fined again for selling bonds and other investments.

They were fined in 2013 for sales of all regulated products due to failings in their sales culture and incentives. Lloyds were instructed to carry out a review of cases that may have found to be mis-sold.

. To be honest if it wasn't for claims companies we probably would never know.

As mentioned above, Lloyds were instructed to carry out a review and contact people affected. So, they would know. Claims companies are parasites who generate complaints where no complaints exist.

You are making a right mess of this. Stop focusing on fines and unrelated issues. Focus on your issues specifically.

Don't understand what you mean as it should have been a stock and shares is a and unit trusts? Are you saying that would have been more suitable at the time for my husband to invest in?

Probably. Investment bonds are below the pecking order of S&S ISAs.

Clint163

Atreyu107 wrote: »

The sense of entitlement that some posters have on this board is simply incredible at times.

You were fully aware that the product had an early exit charge, and yet your husband encashed the product early. The charge was thus levied, and the money you got back was less than what was invested.

In what universe do you think this is a case of mis-selling? You keep saying 'this is not about the investment, it's about the mis-selling'. What does that even mean? They are intrinsically linked. You are complaining, with zero grounds, that the investment lost money and was therefore mis-sold, but you admit the investment lost money because you ignored the terms of the product

I swear reading this forum raises my blood pressure from time to time...

It's the misselling part that I am talking about. Obviously when I am writing this the investment performance is being mentioned. Rather than take certain parts of my complaint.

Firstly, would a bond that's generates a income be suitable for a 29yr old who plans were to purchase property? The fact that the rep obviously was not listening to my husband needs is part of the misselling. Isn't it in their profession to look at the person lifestyle and suggest a product that was more suitable? Rather than the commission? They had more to gain from this product than my husband. The biggest part of the misselling was to do with the products and were they suitable for that individual. This was not the case hence the reason the banks have all been fined for most products they sold especially when they were commission based.

Clint163

dunstonh wrote: »

.

Correct.. I refer you back to post #9. Lloyds were fined for the sale of precipice bonds on sales made between oct 2000 and July 2001. Your husband was not sold a precipice bond. He was sold an onshore investment bond.



They were fined in 2013 for sales of all regulated products due to failings in their sales culture and incentives. Lloyds were instructed to carry out a review of cases that may have found to be mis-sold.



As mentioned above, Lloyds were instructed to carry out a review and contact people affected. So, they would know. Claims companies are parasites who generate complaints where no complaints exist.

You are making a right mess of this. Stop focusing on fines and unrelated issues. Focus on your issues specifically.



Probably. Investment bonds are below the pecking order of S&S ISAs.

I am not just focusing on fines, am am just pointing out that the banks were not innocent and were robbing the public due to their own greed. They wouldn't have been fined all those times mentioned if they were conducting their business to suit the customers needs. We were the ones that it affected after all. You may see them as parasites but those customers who they manage to make successful claims for would disagree with you.

dunstonh

I am not just focusing on fines, am am just pointing out that the banks were not innocent and were robbing the public due to their own greed. They wouldn't have been fined all those times mentioned if they were conducting their business to suit the customers needs. We were the ones that it affected after all. You may see them as parasites but those customers who they manage to make successful claims for would disagree with you.

Banks were heavy in sales culture. However, despite all that, only a minority of cases they did would be mis-sales. Some staff got away with mis-selling a lot whilst others would not have mis-sold anything. So, you cannot use general things in a complaint. Everything is specific to the case in question.

People who make successful complaints using a claims company have paid to use the free of charge complaints process. The financial ombudsman service have reported that the chances of success are lower when using a claims company compared to making a personal complaint. Many CMCs just use a template letter with a shotgun approach hoping something sticks. In reality, non of that is needed. A simple complaint letter giving reasons requires the bank to review all aspects of the sale. This includes things not mentioned in your complaint letter. 5 minutes is all it takes to raise a complaint. A CMC taking thousands for 5 minutes work is not good value and anyone with a bit of common sense should be able to see that.

Clint163

dunstonh wrote: »

Banks were heavy in sales culture. However, despite all that, only a minority of cases they did would be mis-sales. Some staff got away with mis-selling a lot whilst others would not have mis-sold anything. So, you cannot use general things in a complaint. Everything is specific to the case in question.

Yes they were and not all the beneficial to the public. I am aware each case differs. My husband is here whilst I type this. The rep said that the bond would make more than his savings account. This alone was not accurate. He had asked what my husband what his plans was with the savings and he replied to purchase a house in the next few years. if he questioned my husband more About the future purchase of the house, the rep would have known this was not suitable.

People who make successful complaints using a claims company have paid to use the free of charge complaints process. The financial ombudsman service have reported that the chances of success are lower when using a claims company compared to making a personal complaint. Many CMCs just use a template letter with a shotgun approach hoping something sticks. In reality, non of that is needed. A simple complaint letter giving reasons requires the bank to review all aspects of the sale. This includes things not mentioned in your complaint letter. 5 minutes is all it takes to raise a complaint. A CMC taking thousands for 5 minutes work is not good value and anyone with a bit of common sense should be able to see that.

Some people are too busy or don't even know they can complain so each individual circumstances differ. I have heard many successful stories using them, this is from friends of friends and family members who have all been successful.

DrSyn

Clint163

Thank you for answering some of my questions.

I am sorry Q3 upset you. I said "if he was weak willed", not that was he was weak willed.

Your answers raise some other questions.

1. Your husband is a" busy man.
Why did he not take the quicker option of phoning the bank and telling them to stop pestering him, instead of taking the longer one of sitting through a sales pitch?

2. Both of you did not "have a clue" what the info he was given ment.
So what steps did either of you take, to find out what it was all about. Or did he just hand over £10,000 to the bank for something neither of you understood?

3. Your husband knew their was a penalty but not the amount.
What steps did he take to find its value and what was the result?

4. Was all your concern by any chance triggered by a claims company calling you?

dunstonh

Clint163 wrote: »

Some people are too busy or don't even know they can complain so each individual circumstances differ. I have heard many successful stories using them, this is from friends of friends and family members who have all been successful.

yet, using a CMC takes longer than complaining directly. So, the "too busy" excuse is bogus.

People who think they cant complain (if you believe such an absurd thing) but then find out they can complain are meant to be told by CMCs that they can complain free of charge directly. Perhaps the claims companies mis-sold them too.

ViolaLass

The fact that it was not the most suitable product for your husband doesn't necessarily mean that it was mis-sold if he was clearly told what the product was and still said yes to it.

I might want an ice cream but if someone tells me that they have a pork sandwich and I agree to take it, I can't complain that it was mis-sold just because I really wanted an ice cream.