Looks too good to be true

oldwiring

AnotherJoe wrote: »

If it's a fake statement and it's not actually on TP, to criticise TP is wholly illogical.

But having not clicked on the TrustPilot link, there's no illogicality in my expressed thoughts. From other encounters with their reviews I would say the site would be one I rushed to anyway.

Flobberchops

oldwiring wrote: »

[STRIKE]Looks[/STRIKE] too good to be true

Fixed that for you!

If you're willing to take some risk, you could get better than 9% by investing in P2P - with the added benefits of not being tied to a 5 year term, being able to diversify between several loan parts, and not having the high minimum buy-in of £5000.

TheTracker

oldwiring wrote: »

http://securedbonds.co.uk/energy-bonds/

What's the catch?

Look no further.... this could happen

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jan/29/investors-lose-millions-bond-company-administration

binaryuniverse

oldwiring wrote: »

But having not clicked on the TrustPilot link, there's no illogicality in my expressed thoughts. From other encounters with their reviews I would say the site would be one I rushed to anyway.

There isn't a Trustpilot link for you to click on. There are no Trustpilot reviews. To say your view has no illogicality because you haven't explored the avenues is illogical in itself. The logical course of action would be to check the Trustpilot site itself and search for reviews there.

Uxb wrote: »

No idea whether now TP is any better, but based on what i've read over the last few years I'd not believe a word I saw on the site.

But you haven't seen any words, from Trustpilot, on that site. Not in the one the OP linked to anyway.

Superscrooge

Uxb wrote: »

On TP generally have a read from 2015
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5197536
Basically companies managing to get bad reviews removed from TP based on some form of technicalities to make the review "inadmissible"

About 5 years a aviation forum had a long thread on this very practice about one particular supplier who was doing this on TP: so getting wonderful reviews only posted, the bad ones "vanished" while at the same time singularly failing to deliver the goods. I suppose they never had the brain capacity to think that being a niche sector those outraged would be posting on such forums and word would get around real quick.

Then there is the problem of reviews posted on all such sites which are actually totally fake.

No idea whether now TP is any better, but based on what i've read over the last few years I'd not believe a word I saw on the site.

The above post is very true.

Two years ago I got ripped off by a dodgy airport car parking firm which had glowing reviews on Trustpilot .

I managed to get a refund via my credit card and posted a highly critical review on trustpilot. But the company kept objecting and trustpilot kept removing my review.

It made me realise just how easy it is for companies to manipulate reviews on Trustpilot.

jamesd

oldwiring wrote: »

What's the catch?

Assuming it's not a fraudulent clone of another site, which the copied and pasted text implies, you can get higher rates on secured lending than that via peer to peer lending via places like Ablrate, Collateral and MoneyThing, so why bother? Those three and many other P2P places also have secondary markets so you can sell before the end of the loan term if you like, subject to there being a buyer, which there normally is in decent time if a loan isn't known to be in trouble already.

[STRIKE]Also note that it says that "their facilities process used cooking oil into bio-diesel", past tense, and doesn't say what it does today.[/STRIKE]

Priority of charges can also be a factor. You can have a third or fourth ranking charge on say a house and it'll probably be worthless in a sale because the first and second and maybe third charge holders will get all the proceeds of the sale, not you.

bowlhead99

jamesd wrote: »

Also note that it says that "their facilities process used cooking oil into bio-diesel", past tense, and doesn't say what it does today.

This is surely just you going a bit 'try-hard' on attempting to come up with things to discredit them and your reading comprehension is a bit off because it's late at the end of a weekend

Read the sentence again.
- They say that they have facilities which process something into biodiesel

- The thing that they process into biodiesel is cooking oil

- The type of cooking oil which they process into biodiesel is not 'fresh, unused' cooking oil - it is 'used' cooking oil that someone has already cooked with.

As a consequence, they are saying
- our facilities (facilities that we own or operate)
- process (present tense for what the facilities do)
- "used cooking oil" (cooking oil that has been used for cooking)
- into biodiesel (the end product of the process)

They are not saying "we used to process cooking oil, but we're not telling you what we process now".

I have no comment on whether their biodiesel factory exists or whether the investment deal is good or bad. I imagine it is bad if it is on a misleading website as others pointed out. Just a bit of a flaw in your reading.

jamesd

You're right, I did misread that.

AnotherJoe

Superscrooge wrote: »

The above post is very true.

Two years ago I got ripped off by a dodgy airport car parking firm which had glowing reviews on Trustpilot .

I managed to get a refund via my credit card and posted a highly critical review on trustpilot. But the company kept objecting and trustpilot kept removing my review.

It made me realise just how easy it is for companies to manipulate reviews on Trustpilot.

I'm sure all that's true. It's nothing to do with the illogical position that because someone fakes "X", X is therefore faulty. Let's say that aspirin fixes headaches. And you find some fake aspirin. Your position is that this fake aspirin proves that aspirin doesn't fix headaches.

Malthusian

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Let's say that aspirin fixes headaches. And you find some fake aspirin. Your position is that this fake aspirin proves that aspirin doesn't fix headaches.

This is more like "Crystal healing doesn't fix headaches, and these crystals aren't even real, they're coloured glass. However, even if they were real crystals, they still wouldn't fix my headache."

Criticising Trustpilot isn't illogical, it's just irrelevant.