Misselling of bonds

cloud_dog

Clint163 wrote: »

This is the problem, words like use of the wrong tax bracket I don't understand?? We think it was missold on the grounds that it was a bond sold to a unmarried 29 yr old man with no family??? (We were not married at this point) We feel there were many suitable products available. I actually don't know of anyone who does have one. Most use isa, or savings accounts with higher interest but 30 notice etc.

Dunstonh is telling you that based on his experience you will not succeed in your claim based on the reasons you keep stating.

He has (in post #11) told you how to complain and what to complain for in order to , more than likely get the result you are looking for:

dunstonh wrote: »

However, all that said, there is a potential mis-sale here and it is one that you have no mentioned, despite all the other irrelevant points you raised. Tax efficiency. An investment bond appears in the tax efficiency list after ISA. So, the sale should have been a stocks & shares ISA and unit trust (for the amount that could not be put in an ISA).

Clint163

dunstonh wrote: »

The main problem is your early posts gave reasons for complaint that were largely due to your own fault or unrelated things that had nothing to do with your sale directly. Salesforces are allowed to sell. They are allowed to use sales tactics and methods. They cannot be over the top but a complaint about it 14 years later holds little validity and seems opportunistic.

Then you look at the reasons for loss. They are things known about that could happen. So, its hard to see a complaint reason there.

So, when other posters are looking at your reasons, they cannot see any failure. It looks like you are digging for a reason rather than actually having a reason.

That said, the use of the wrong tax wrapper will get you the result you are looking for. The outcome you are looking for but not using the reasons you have given.

There is every chance it will come under time barred. Don't you think we don't feeling like slapping ourselves for not complaining sooner, but we never knew it was even possible when it came to investments. But I have complained to banks in the past for cheeky advisors only to have it not even been knowledged. Maybe we don't pursue the complaint enough?

Clint163

Malthusian wrote: »

The PPI scandal has got to the point where the banks have been paying claims which they knew perfectly well were bogus, but they didn't have the staff or the time to prove it within the timeframe set by the ombudsman, so they paid them anyway.

A trained monkey could put in a successful PPI claim, and not a particularly intelligent monkey either.

You have no such advantage when complaining about an investment bond, you will actually have to prove you were missold.

That's not true. Banks are still rejecting many Ppi complaints. Only the individual will know if the Ppi was missold to them. I know there are people who maybe have chanced their luck and won but there are thousand like myself that was never even given the choice. I took out a loan in 90s For £2530. I paid 200 per month for 60 months. So in total I paid 12000 back. The monthly amount included the Ppi. So that just an idea of how much the banks were robbing us.

dunstonh

We think it was missold on the grounds that it was a bond sold to a unmarried 29 yr old man with no family??? (We were not married at this point)

Why would an unmarried man with no family not be suited to investments?

We feel there were many suitable products available. I actually don't know of anyone who does have one. Most use isa, or savings accounts with higher interest but 30 notice etc.

Who you know is no indication of wrongdoing. Don't people you know have pensions? I have many young investors. As will all IFAs. Are you suggesting I and all the others have mis-sold them?

That's not true. Banks are still rejecting many Ppi complaints.

actually it is true. Around half of PPi complaints dont even have PPI. Plus, many of the banks operate an auto-payout floor limit. That floor limit can vary depending on workload but I know for a period, one bank was auto-paying out if the redress amount was under £3000 whether the person had a valid complaint or not. They didnt even bother investigating it. They just paid out.

Clint163

dunstonh wrote: »

Why would an unmarried man with no family not be suited to investments?



Who you know is no indication of wrongdoing. Don't people you know have pensions? I have many young investors. As will all IFAs. Are you suggesting I and all the others have mis-sold them?

Cannot comment on you specifically but now an understand why you are so defensive. Just like all there are good people amongst the bad. My sister works as a unit manager in a well known insurance company and she said this still happens today. Most IFA are all using the best commissioned rahther than what more suitable to their client needs. However, saying that I'm sure there are others that have their customers best interests at heart.


actually it is true. Around half of PPi complaints dont even have PPI. Plus, many of the banks operate an auto-payout floor limit. That floor limit can vary depending on workload but I know for a period, one bank was auto-paying out if the redress amount was under £3000 whether the person had a valid complaint or not. They didnt even bother investigating it. They just paid out.

Really, wished it was as easy as that for me.

Not unsuitable to invest just not the best product. Would you suggest a bond for my husband? If you are a independent IFA you have many companies to pick from but years ago banks used appointed reps that could only sell the bank products. This is where a lot of the misselling took place hard sales based on commission

Malthusian

Clint163 wrote:

Cannot comment on you specifically but now an understand why you are so defensive. Just like all there are good people amongst the bad. My sister works as a unit manager in a well known insurance company and she said this still happens today. Most IFA are all using the best commissioned rahther than what more suitable to their client needs. However, saying that I'm sure there are others that have their customers best interests at heart.

DunstonH did not say half of what you attributed to him in quote brackets.

I was tempted to offer some pointers, but I'm not going to bother if you're going to misrepresent what other people say.

You are still going out of your way to demonstrate your ignorance. Commission has not been allowed on most products used by IFAs since 2012, including investment bonds. When you're putting in a claim for PPI misselling it doesn't really matter how ignorant you are, everyone gets a payout anyway as long as they remember to spell the name of their bank correctly. If you're putting in a claim for misselling of an investment product you have to actually show you were recommended an investment that was not suitable for you.

dunstonh

My sister works as a unit manager in a well known insurance company and she said this still happens today. Most IFA are all using the best commissioned rahther than what more suitable to their client needs.

Please provide your evidence. Product providers would be fined tens or even hundreds of millions and the IFAs could be shut down. Being paid commission after it was outlawed in 2012 would make headlines in the national press.

It doesnt say a lot for your sister if she knows about it. Indeed, knowledge of it and failure to report means your sister is in breach of FCA guidelines and could suffer enforcement action from the FCA.

Or perhaps you should retract what you said as I suspect that it was made up.

redpete

Malthusian wrote: »

DunstonH did not say half of what you attributed to him in quote brackets.

I was tempted to offer some pointers, but I'm not going to bother if you're going to misrepresent what other people say.

It's not on purpose though, Clint just keeps messing up the quoting of posts.

HappyHarry

My sister works as a unit manager in a well known insurance company and she said this still happens today. Most IFA are all using the best commissioned rahther than what more suitable to their client needs.

Clearly complete rubbish.

Entertaining as this thread is, I suspect that not just this quote, but the entire story, has been fabricated to provoke reaction.

Atreyu107 wrote: »

*grabs popcorn*...

Might need a bigger bucket.

Clint163

dunstonh wrote: »

Please provide your evidence. Product providers would be fined tens or even hundreds of millions and the IFAs could be shut down. Being paid commission after it was outlawed in 2012 would make headlines in the national press.

It doesnt say a lot for your sister if she knows about it. Indeed, knowledge of it and failure to report means your sister is in breach of FCA guidelines and could suffer enforcement action from the FCA.

Or perhaps you should retract what you said as I suspect that it was made up.

It should have said sister in law. We have never went into great lenghs about it but when the conversation has came up she said it still happens. How she knows is something I don't know. Regarding breaching anything I wouldn't know. I don't even know which part of the insurance company she works for all I know is she is a unit manager and a busy woman.