Don't be fooled by cunning con artists
Options
Comments
-
Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that some packaged bank accounts were mis-sold, but conversely in many cases customers have made decisions to open such accounts in full sight of all the facts but subsequently get buyer's remorse and decide that they want a piece of the reclaiming action, in the mistaken belief that if they signed up for such an account then it must have been mis-sold.peterbaker wrote: »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?
Personally I buy insurance products from whoever offers the best value for money - why would I feel compelled in any way to go to a bank?peterbaker wrote: »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.
I wasn't making any claims about PSR 2017 - I was merely pointing out that the article that you chose to quote makes a number of points that counter your views.peterbaker wrote: »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.
I have no issue with people pursuing banks for recompense if they feel they have a genuine case for doing so - if a customer doesn't get what they believe they're entitled to from the bank then obviously they do have the option of referring to FOS and ultimately the courts if they believe they have the law on their side.peterbaker wrote: »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.
Up to the point at which you spontaneously combust with rage and righteous indignation?peterbaker wrote: »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:0 -
peterbaker wrote: »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.
After being a customer of Lloyds Bank for many years (it was my first bank), there came a time when I would receive almost daily phone calls from them trying to entice me into buying their products. I asked them many times (politely and later not so politely) to stop pestering me, but they continued. The upshot was that I changed banks, and have never been bothered in that way since.
I do also remember being encouraged to take out PPI, but never took up that option.0 -
-
peterbaker wrote: »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.
From your rhetoric you seem to hate banks maybe more than you hate anything else in life. But - if your money is not under the mattress - does that mean that you patronise one or more of them with your hard-earned cash and give them the opportunity of using YOUR money for their own evil ends?
Surely not, as a matter of principle?0 -
peterbaker wrote: »Are you trying to be funny?
Whether or not they were trying to be funny, they certainly succeeded.0 -
Well OK, it was expressed in a flippant way and sledgehammer sarcasm isn't to everyone's taste, but the underlying message is legitimate, i.e. that people weren't forced to take PPI.What a stupid comment. Well done. :T
You may have resented the Lloyds sales pitch but handled it in exactly the right way IMHO, i.e. say no and vote with your feet....0 -
Well OK, it was expressed in a flippant way and sledgehammer sarcasm isn't to everyone's taste, but the underlying message is legitimate, i.e. that people weren't forced to take PPI.
To be honest I quite enjoyed the humour (sorry, Sapphire) but if reports are to be believed, and are not just media hysteria, some people didn't 'buy' PPI and weren't 'sold' it either - yet it was still being included in loan repayments.
My own experience of PPI has never been adverse. I have been offered it in the past but never taken it - and my nails have now grown back.0 -
I'm following this thread but i think i may have to stop. I see Peterbakers posts and have to make a decision whether to read or skip, it's all got a bit boring now.
Peterbaker, we geddit, you don't like banks.
Personally, i like banks, i work for one, but even if i didn't i would still like them, as do millions of other folk. I don't sell anything and never have but i trust them to look after my cash. If i stupidly give my details to someone who calls/emails/texts without me first checking who they are then i am to blame and would not expect the bank to stand the loss. I agree maybe PPI was missold by a percentage of people who worked for banks but in my experience, huge numbers of people jumped on the PPI Misselling bandwagon, causing the banks to pay out in some cases where there was no misselling involved at all. You can't have it both ways.
I have never bought insurance from a bank or a packaged bank account as i am old and wise enough to see what is worth it and what isn't. I don't really see how anyone can hold a bank responsible for something a customer makes the ultimate decision on.
I know Peterbaker will have a 30,000 word response for this but i don't know whether i can be bothered reading any more. I think we should just agree to disagree and let the thread die now. It's not going to change anything, people will still make stupid decisions and banks will still sell stuff.0 -
I don't think one HSBC employee dictates whether a thread continues or dies on MSE.
By all means duck out if you can't think of anything to contribute on the unanswered questions about why banks like HSBC have cornered customers into a digital arena and are then dumping the obvious risks that come with it upon tricked customers.
We the customers do get what what banks have become. I don't think millions "liked" banks when they learned HSBC was fined for moneylaundering drug money, and then reportedly was found to have been handling terrorist money too, do you?
Perhaps all HSBC employees should be forced in the company's time to watch the Netflix documentary on the subject and to individually write an accurate synopsis thereafter and sign it before being permitted to get up and go to lunch, in order to remain temporarily compliant in their current roles. Their synopses should be marked for accuracy, and any who fail to geddit should have their compliant status nullified.
As I said, there are some self-serving scum still working in banks and they should all be rooted out, whilst the rest clearly need serious re-programming.
Meanwhile back on the main thread topic, ...
An authorised payment institution ... must maintain organisational arrangements sufficient to minimise the risk of the loss or diminution of relevant funds or relevant assets through fraud, misuse, negligence or poor administration.
It seems that banks are being reckless and negligent with fraud risks and are failing in the above bolded duty in respect of executing multiple unusual anonymising transactions which can drain life savings in customers accounts in a matter of minutes without any explanation, don't we think? Perhaps it suits some banks and some of their more dubious customers that their systems are geared to handle large numbers of multiple unusual anonymising transactions without explanation?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards