Don't be fooled by cunning con artists

ValiantSon

peterbaker wrote: »

I guess historians, a bit like many lawyers, dont have too much to contribute until others have done their worst - original thought leading to positive action doesn!!!8217;t come easy:p

Oh dear, another of your silly put-downs.

By the way, Alan Bullock's work is horribly out of date. You might like to have a look at Ian Kershaw (widely regarded as the foremost expert on the Third Reich). The hundreds of books, research papers, and original primary sources I have read are too many to list on here, compared to your staggering two books!

peterbaker wrote: »

I do know there are consultancies contracted by banks to protect their online reputations and to promulgate their preferred view of the world. I think they call themselves marketing consultants and analysts, and I suppose that markeing can take all forms up to and including Cambridge Analylitica type work.

I am not sure if those clever chaps would feel the need to frequent MSE, but one might imagine that anyone actually employed in a more normal bank role wouldnt be so animated as to spend so much of their spare time knocking us concerned citizens down at every turn. Afterall, all we are asking - in the context of protections offered by banks (or not!) to vulnerable customers damaged by confidence tricksters committing serious fraud as a living - are simple general questions about the existence of any remaining resoundingly positive social purpose of banks

What another silly thing to have written. This is a discussion forum and I am discussing things. What you don't like, Peter, is that not everyone agrees with you. You also dislike that some people know more than you about some things. How sad, for you.

peterbaker wrote: »

Why do we keep our money in banks? Why dont we just use cash from under the mattress? Perhaps As we now begin to understand that risk of unintended major loss is now more likely to involve exploitation of FinTech than to involve burglary, we ought to review why we now even tolerate the banks in their current guise since they now so often deny responsibility for digitally unlocked cash.

Apart from it being much more convenient to use a bank account (somewhere for employers to pay salaries into; electronic payments; debit cards; direct debits; standing orders) they also pay us interest, so we can increase our existing wealth, or at the very least do our best to stave off the impact of inflation. Keeping money under the mattress offers none of these protections or benefits.

You also continue to operate under the misapprehension that the primary purpose of banks is to act as a safety deposit box for cash.

peterbaker wrote: »

Oh and for any serious commentator in this particular forum to suggests banks don!!!8217;t or haven!!!8217;t pushed loans onto customers is about the most naive assertion I have ever read in this forum if it is honestly asserted.

More empty rhetoric.

peterbaker wrote: »

Some of us actually know banking retail and its manoeuvres under the whipping of so called performance managers
If I see such misleading rubbish spouted again on MSE by anyone claiming to hold or have held a banking job with real responsibility, I think may start feeling very nauseous indeed.

I have never claimed to have worked in banking, Peter.

peterbaker wrote: »

Let me be crystal clear, because the PPI scandal relied on selling credit first in order to sell the PPI, for !!!8220;performance purposes!!!8221; bank staff who sold loans without PPI were ridiculed daily. PPI single premiums added thousands to requested new loan sales balances.

Oh dear, another example of your failing to follow a logical argument. People who applied for loans were missold PPI, but that doesn't mean that the loans themselves were missold, or even pushed at customers. No bank has ever pushed a loan at me. They may have made me aware of the available rates, but that isn't pushing it - which is a highly pejorative term - it is advertising. So are you now saying that banks shouldn't be allowed to advertise their products? What a very strange world you live in.

peterbaker wrote: »

Consolidation of other existing debt was also a tactic to inflate the sales value of the new loan, with PPI on the lot. Luvverly jubberly! Did you help the customer? Yes because we!!!8217;re proud to say, that!!!8217;s what weid you consolidate all their other loans? And the big one - you DID sell PPI, right? :rotfl:

Consolidation of debt is not in itself wrong. Consolidating debt can (and has, in many instances) reduced the cost of that debt.

Isn't your hobby-horse getting tired of you sitting on it all the time?

Terry_Towelling

ValiantSon wrote: »

It is not reasonable to blame banks for people getting into debt because they don't have the ability to, "exercise appropriate judgement".

I wonder how many people did accrue larger debts than they should have done due to the addition of mis-sold PPI?

ValiantSon wrote: »

Neither, do banks push loans at people: an assertion that they do is simply ridiculous.

Hmmm. Yes, perhaps it is easier to push inappropriate insurance products to someone who has taken a loan - PPI.

ValiantSon wrote: »

Funnily enough, it isn't profitable to lend money to people who are likely to default.

As we find out from time to time when the banks get it wrong and we all have to pay for it.

ValiantSon wrote: »

Your wife's dementia is not relevant to this discussion. I am sorry to hear that she has dementia, but the manifestations of that are not relevant.

We all have private lives, and you have no idea what others may or may not be coping with.

Thank you for your concern. You bid me a good day, so I thought I'd let you know how it was going. Just another of my many flaws - overshare or alienate - and sometimes both at the same time. Would you like an update on my wife's irrelevant dementia? Perhaps more of the 'manifestations' - there are many.

I'm quite aware that my life (and that of my wife) is probably far easier than some others - I have learned to count my blessings. If others want to share issues, I am happy to listen and won't be offended or think it irrelevant - especially if the thread does touch on the subject - as does this one.

ValiantSon wrote: »

I corrected an assumption in peterbaker's argument (as I have already explained), which was one of the cornerstones of the argument. My comment was, therefore, entirely valid and materially relevant. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but that's life.

Ah, am I to understand you were anxious that other readers of the thread might become outraged by the banks having seemingly strayed from what was being touted as their original purpose and so you thought it best to make sure they knew the facts so that they might instead think, 'oh well, never mind, that's not what the banks originally stood for so perhaps we better forget all about it and let them carry on as they are.'

I didn't say I didn't like your post, I simply stated what I inferred - and apologised in advance in case my inference was wrong

ValiantSon wrote: »

Do I think that banks should do more to protect "vulnerable groups"? I'm not sure what there is that they could additionally do.

Well, thanks for trying but if you can't think of anything then what chance do the rest of us have of coming up with anything?

eskbanker

peterbaker wrote: »

Let me be crystal clear, because the PPI scandal relied on selling credit first in order to sell the PPI, for “performance purposes” bank staff who sold loans without PPI were ridiculed daily. PPI single premiums added thousands to requested new loan sales balances.

Consolidation of other existing debt was also a tactic to inflate the sales value of the new loan, with PPI on the lot. Luvverly jubberly! Did you help the customer? Yes because we’re proud to say, that’s what weid you consolidate all their other loans? And the big one - you DID sell PPI, right? :rotfl:

Isn't this all getting a bit circular? I pointed out a few days ago in post #18 that the PPI scandal was symptomatic of the prevailing culture of the noughties and was likely to have been one of the major reasons why a bunch of industry heavyweights felt the need to put their names to that 2010 letter reassuring people that things would be better in future!

I'd contend that the industry culture has improved from those days of reckless overselling, etc, although doubt that anyone would be complacent enough to suggest that the journey is complete....

ValiantSon

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

I wonder how many people did accrue larger debts than they should have done due to the addition of mis-sold PPI?

That wasn't actually an issue under discussion, until peterbaker's last post. Nonetheless, I shall engage with it. I have never said that PPI was appropriately sold to everyone, although what gets missed in all of the present day hysteria, is that it actually was an appropriate product option for some people. Not all PPI was missold. Whether it was a good financial choice is a separate matter. I would never have taken it, but that isn't to say that it wasn't a valid option.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Hmmm. Yes, perhaps it is easier to push inappropriate insurance products to someone who has taken a loan - PPI.

Changing the terms of the argument is hardly good practice, as it hints at an attempt to misrepresent the views of others, but nevermind. See above for my comments on PPI.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

As we find out from time to time when the banks get it wrong and we all have to pay for it.

You are misrpresenting the business model. Banks, like other companies, exist to make profits for their owners. If the bank ends up with a liability, then it has to use other capital to off-set that liability. This means that they have to factor such liabilities into their business costs, which will always be met by customers, but that is no different from any other company, which will seek to pass on its costs to its customers. If you don't pass costs on then you don't make any money and eventually you go bust, which is of no real benefit to the customer in the long run, as they now have reduced choice on products.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Thank you for your concern. You bid me a good day, so I thought I'd let you know how it was going. Just another of my many flaws - overshare or alienate - and sometimes both at the same time. Would you like an update on my wife's irrelevant dementia? Perhaps more of the 'manifestations' - there are many.

I'm quite aware that my life (and that of my wife) is probably far easier than some others - I have learned to count my blessings. If others want to share issues, I am happy to listen and won't be offended or think it irrelevant - especially if the thread does touch on the subject - as does this one.

Your comments weren't relevant, and at best side-tracked the issues being discussed. I'm not exactly having a great day myself, but what I have to deal with is irrelevant to this discussion and I won't introduce it.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Ah, am I to understand you were anxious that other readers of the thread might become outraged by the banks having seemingly strayed from what was being touted as their original purpose and so you thought it best to make sure they knew the facts so that they might instead think, 'oh well, never mind, that's not what the banks originally stood for so perhaps we better forget all about it and let them carry on as they are.'

You don't seem too bothered about factual accuracy when presenting an argument. That's a shame. You are also straying down a rather patronising line here.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Well, thanks for trying but if you can't think of anything then what chance do the rest of us have of coming up with anything?

Yep, there we go: patronising and flippant.

You also quoted me selectively, and failed to address any of the perfectly sensible and important questions I raised about the issue of "vulnerable groups".

Additionally, you take my comment that I can't think of any additional measures that banks could adopt to be a failing on my part. It isn't a failing, because I don't agree with your contention that such measures are necessary in the first place, and nobody on here has yet elucidated why I should do.

You also ignored my comments about Cornucopia's suggestions.

Selectively quoting me in this moves your comments close to the beginnings of a straw man argument.

Terry_Towelling

ValiantSon wrote: »

I have never said that PPI was appropriately sold to everyone.... Not all PPI was missold. Whether it was a good financial choice is a separate matter. I would never have taken it, but that isn't to say that it wasn't a valid option.

Seems some people didn't have any idea PPI was being included; they didn't have the chance to make that financial choice - their fault or the banks? Who can say?

ValiantSon wrote: »

Banks, like other companies, exist to make profits for their owners.

We agree on something - I said the same thing myself in an earlier post - although perhaps we should say they exist to do the bidding of their owners - whatever that may be.

ValiantSon wrote: »

Your comments weren't relevant, and at best side-tracked the issues being discussed. I'm not exactly having a great day myself, but what I have to deal with is irrelevant to this discussion and I won't introduce it.

Fair point. I wish you well and hope you have a better day tomorrow.

ValiantSon wrote: »

You don't seem too bothered about factual accuracy when presenting an argument. That's a shame. You are also straying down a rather patronising line here.

So my understanding was wrong, then? As for patronising, I now have a reputation to live up to - you called me (in another thread) patronising and grating in my (apparent) attempts to be the 'wise old man of the forum'. As if I would ever aspire to such lofty heights.

ValiantSon wrote: »

Yep, there we go: patronising and flippant.

Sorry can't help myself. That said, more flippant than patronising because you are obviously very well-read and knowledgeable. You also can't resist coming back at people and I suspect you quite enjoy the 'jousting' that goes on - as do I to a certain extent.

ValiantSon wrote: »

You also quoted me selectively..

Sorry, doing it again - I have learned this from the master.

ValiantSon wrote: »

Additionally, you take my comment that I can't think of any additional measures that banks could adopt to be a failing on my part. It isn't a failing, because I don't agree with your contention that such measures are necessary in the first place, and nobody on here has yet elucidated why I should do.

I didn't say it was a failing - you see how easy it is to infer something. I was perhaps being a bit sarcastic but genuinely thought you might be able to offer something insightful - although I did put it quite flippantly again - apologies. It isn't necessarily my contention that such measures are necessary but there may be room for change for the better.

peterbaker

eskbanker wrote: »

Isn't this all getting a bit circular? I pointed out a few days ago in post #18 that the PPI scandal was symptomatic of the prevailing culture of the noughties and was likely to have been one of the major reasons why a bunch of industry heavyweights felt the need to put their names to that 2010 letter reassuring people that things would be better in future!

I'd contend that the industry culture has improved from those days of reckless overselling, etc, although doubt that anyone would be complacent enough to suggest that the journey is complete....

In what ways would you say the journey has even been started beyond the forced FSA banning of banks from their disgraceful selling of single premium PPI before the start of the current decade? The same ruthless public face, or should I more accurately say significant further facelessness, makes any changes look a bit "plus ca change ..." to me ...

I'd contend that they replaced it in the immediate short term with more equally disgraceful sales of package account insurances and of other "non-advised" products, even including life assurance and more house and motor insurance which are not products that can be properly sold on a non-advised basis as they are potentially too complicated for ill qualified salespersons. Did they sack all the bent managers who were pushing the bent advisors who were selling PPI? Nah ... they swapped to whatever non-advised products were the banks next chosen money-spinner. And of course their tamed chameleons can change their spots to suit the prevailing climate, or else do the other thing!

In this thread we have the equally shameful suggestion by commentators who seem to want to tell us they understand the whole thing perfectly and logically, that banks have no responsibility to reimburse customers accounts digitally ransacked through trickery.

This Independent article shows that it had become noticeable by early this year that some banks are prepared to take hits that others refuse ...

How can there be a difference under the same regulatory regime?

In that article, Nationwide appeared to recognise that there was a social purpose to their fraud department operation in that they sought to reassure their customer throughout the customer's ordeal whereas HSBC's fraud department seemingly did the opposite.

Perhaps as Nationwide has developed via the old Building Society route, its culture is more acceptable - or are they letting the other banks down by being too soft?

eskbanker

peterbaker wrote: »

In what ways would you say the journey has even been started beyond the forced FSA banning of banks from their disgraceful selling of single premium PPI before the start of the current decade? The same ruthless public face, or should I more accurately say significant further facelessness, makes any changes look a bit "plus ca change ..." to me ...

I'd contend that they replaced it in the immediate short term with more equally disgraceful sales of package account insurances and of other "non-advised" products, even including life assurance and more house and motor insurance which are not products that can be properly sold on a non-advised basis as they are potentially too complicated for ill qualified salespersons. Did they sack all the bent managers who were pushing the bent advisors who were selling PPI? Nah ... they swapped to whatever non-advised products were the banks next chosen money-spinner. And of course their tamed chameleons can change their spots to suit the prevailing climate, or else do the other thing!

As you might expect, I'd heartily disagree with the notion that packaged accounts are in any way comparable to PPI! Granted, there's a superficial similarity in that in some cases it's been demonstrated that both were missold, but they're on a completely different scale and, despite attempts by sites like this and populist tabloids to whip up a frenzy of reclaiming, it really hasn't gained anything like as much traction as PPI, not least because in many cases it's clear that products have been mis-bought rather than mis-sold - you do accept the principle of personal responsibility I hope?

peterbaker wrote: »

In this thread we have the equally shameful suggestion by commentators who seem to want to tell us they understand the whole thing perfectly and logically, that banks have no responsibility to reimburse customers accounts digitally ransacked through trickery.

It's not a shameful suggestion, it's a fact! That Independent piece you quote explains:

Although there is a presumption that the customer is right, the new [PSR 2017] regulations dictate that the bank can refuse to refund the money, or can ask for it back, if they can show that the customer authorised the payment by their consent, the customer acted fraudulently, or it is shown they were grossly negligent in protecting their information.

If banks are in any way actually responsible then yes, of course they should (and do) cough up, but the notion that they should always be liable for the actions of their customers, over which they have no control, is just as laughable now as it was when you tried to argue this at the beginning of the thread.

peterbaker wrote: »

This Independent article shows that it had become noticeable by early this year that some banks are prepared to take hits that others refuse ...

How can there be a difference under the same regulatory regime?

In that article, Nationwide appeared to recognise that there was a social purpose to their fraud department operation in that they sought to reassure their customer throughout the customer's ordeal whereas HSBC's fraud department seemingly did the opposite.

Perhaps as Nationwide has developed via the old Building Society route, its culture is more acceptable - or are they letting the other banks down by being too soft?

Well yes, Nationwide is still a building society, but whether that explains the difference in approach, who can say? I do agree that it's confusing for customers if different institutions take different approaches, but the regulations (as above) are clear - you'd no doubt argue that by going beyond their actual responsibilities Nationwide's is the 'right' approach and HSBC's is the 'wrong' one (and it's self-evidently obvious which will be more 'acceptable' to their customers!), but let's face it, that's never going to be a unanimous view on a thread like this.

That Independent piece goes over much of the same ground as this thread in highlighting the consequences of trying to hold the banks liable for the consequences of all customer actions:

Nikki Worden is a partner at Osborne Clarke’s financial institutions group, specialising in the regulation of financial services offered to consumers. She says there’s a real danger that making banks liable for losses would drive up the cost of consumer banking, potentially ending fee-free banking or increasing other charges.

“I have sympathy for both sides,” she says. “I think it’s very easy to say ‘this should be done’ but it’s a really complex problem. The more banks pay out then the higher the cost of banking.

“There are also potentially unintended consequences of making banks liable. Just look at the car insurance sector: people made claims for whiplash and it pushed up premiums for everyone.”

Worden also worries that making banks liable would encourage criminals to see bank fraud as a “victimless crime”, when in fact we would all shoulder the burden.

However, if, as a result of that case, Nationwide gained more customers at HSBC's expense, that would be entirely understandable, and likewise if they suffered more fraud as a result that might not be completely unexpected either, if Nationwide customers felt more able to let their guard down in the knowledge that there was a safety net there....

peterbaker

UK retail banks lost their way in banking a long time ago and after they tried their hands at getting rich quick by selling all kinds of questionable hybrid investments via a large backroom salesforce farming all the vulnerable bank clients who "trusted" their bank's front office. Then then the banks got their knuckles severely rapped by regulators, so they largely pulled out of that type of business rather than suffer the cost of fiercer regulation. In the process they dumped most of the backroom investment sales people who had often came out at night to living rooms across the country with silver-tongued spiels for Mr and Mrs Loyal Bank-Fodder. Then the banks moved on to the next scam - they decided to get rich quick by crooked insurance sales via their cheaper front-line branch staffs and call centres. Pure and simple.

PPI is of course insurance and largely unusable to most customers sold it by banks. That's because at the highest levels banks took over insurance companies specifically so they could control PPI commission levels they paid themselves between their subsidiaries and particularly, they took control of the claims outgo to any customer bold enough to try to claim. I heard one official figure published at one bank in 2008 that PPI annual net profit was £165M and the average successful PPI claim was £150. The moment I heard that, I knew something was terribly wrong.


Packaged bank accounts were touting largely unusable insurance too. Mis-bought and not mis-sold? Bank sellers do not have an ounce of insurance principles and practice knowledge in their heads. They merely have the minimum learnt by rote spiels the bank legal and compliance teams feel will be enough to satisfy tick box compliance. Mis-bought? :rotfl: Are you for real?

Buying life insurance from a bank is a sick joke - they don't even wish to be regulated as advisors so they tout unadvised life insurance, if you can imagine such a fiasco.

And house insurance? Three benefits and a couple of exclusions and thats it - sold? Don't make me laugh again.

Banks have long been dens of ruthlessness masquerading as professional service providers.

Eskbanker, you are not right with your oblique references to PSR 2017 and lazy one way interpretation to suit you and the offensively high paid legal teams that banks employ, and neither is Nikki Worden with mealy-mouthed comments about sympathy for both sides. She knows which side her bread is buttered.

On one side we have absolutely ruthless corporate interests, and on the other we have customers who are or have been routinely confidence tricked over decades now, and not just by strangers cold-calling, eh? The latter ain't gonna cause Nikki Worden too many problems in her future career now are they?

How long is it I wonder since you have enjoyed discussing what wonderful work you do and what wonderful colleagues you work with when you invite friends around for dinner?

Why don't you try your interpretation of PSR 2017 on them next time a vulnerable relative of theirs asks your advice on how to make the bank cough up for funds they have failed to prevent leaving an account into a fraudsters hands?

The part of PSR 2017 you seem to be referring to in order to claim your ruthlessly skewed or possibly brainwashed understanding of right and wrong in UK banking says this:

If a payment service provider, including a payment initiation service provider where appropriate, claims that a payer acted fraudulently or failed with intent or gross negligence to
comply with regulation 72, the payment service provider must provide supporting evidence to the payer.

Is that what you are referring to?

You cannot argue gross negligence when someone is tricked. So we are down to failure with intent to comply with regulation 72.

No tricked customer fails with intent, either. They are tricked - Geddit?

I am absolutely flabbergasted at the corrupt abuse of the English language in this thread i.e. taking a word (intent) within a concise and clear piece of law which conveys one meaning, and then extrapolating the meaning of the word to mean any unintended but conscious act. It is what ruthless lawyers attempt, and I wouldn't be surprised that if someone inadvertently breached rule 72 in their sleep, the lawyers would still argue it as "failing with intent" but thank goodness such lawyers do ultimately fail under the heavyweight intent of justice in the public good when taken to the higher courts.

You, eskbanker, appear to be relying on nothing more than what corrupt lawyers feel they can usually get away with on behalf of their paymasters the banks, especially for as long as this new law has not been tested properly.

I now urge everyone who has lost money in confidence tricks and been refused reimbursement by the bank to hammer their bank again for reimbursement and to bring their cases to MSE.

What appalling behaviours and attitudes we see from banks and those who rely upon them for their continued salaries and expected comfortable pensions. How much longer do we have to put up with this disgrace? :mad:

schiff

Which mattress have you got your wealth under then?

peterbaker

schiff wrote: »

Which mattress have you got your wealth under then?

Are you trying to be funny? People don't put money under the mattress because they have believed for eons that it is much safer in the bank, and banks propound that "money safety" concept even when they actually think like eskbanker.

It is still just possible for a UK current account customer to avoid ATM use and even forced use of PINs, so if a customer is still using doing the other thing and using any type of digital or eBanking, your life savings are definitely no longer safe in the bank in the way this thread sets out to warn about. That's especially if you come up against a brainwashed banker in a fraud department in the wrong bank - one who dare not challenge the corporate legal line on what little in a days work needs actually to be fair in order to tick the box on FCA Principle 6 and go home with a clear conscience.

Truly there are some self-serving scum working long term in and around banks. I've had the dubious pleasure of meeting and interacting with some at all levels. They need rooting out and the rest need total re-programming with some freshly affirmed positive effect social purpose drummed into them.