The BAI rejected my complaint about the Joe Duffy Show on Life Loans

BrendanBurgess

The Joe Duffy programme discussed Bank of Ireland Life Loans and it was covered in this thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116092994&postcount=4894

I complained informally to RTE and they didn't respond.

I made a formal complaint to RTE and they did respond, rejecting it.

I then complained to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.

RTE chose not to respond to the BAI.

The BAI put no questions to RTE

The BAI rejected my complaint.


Here are the key bits which I find most interesting

2) "No requirement for artificial balance"
The Forum considered the complainant’s view that the programme did not meet the requirements of
fairness in the Code by having just one person out of all the callers speak in defence of Life Loans. The
Forum noted that appropriate implementation of the fairness principle should not be taken to mean that
an ‘artificial balance’ is required in order to comply with the Code, nor should it be taken to imply that
equal allocation airtime is always necessary to achieve fairness. The Forum was satisfied that callers
were facilitated in telling their personal stories and a financial advisor, the complainant, was given ample
time to express his views in defence of Life Loans.

So having 17 callers attack a product and only one explaining it is balance. Putting through a caller who had a positive experience of the product would be "artificial balance."

3) "Joe Duffy is known for this and the listeners expect it."

The Forum noted the complainants claims that the programme presenter’s views on Life Loans were
clear and his comments and tone, overall, were prejudiced and biased. The Code recognises that some
current affairs programmes are synonymous with personalities, where the manner in which the presenter
presents or interviews contributors can be keenly anticipated by audiences. Often the nature and style
of the presenter is a key factor in what engages audiences and draws them into consideration and debate
on matters of public controversy and current public debate. The Code seeks to prevent a partisan
position being advocated by the presenter and to guard against a presenter using the programme to
pursue an agenda. The Forum noted that this presenter’s style is well known and is often sympathetic
to callers to elicit their stories. The presenter did, at times, repeat some of the claims made by callers,
but also made comments in defence of some aspects of Life Loans and facilitated one caller in giving
their views in defence of Life Loans.

BrendanBurgess

Sorry, I can't figure out how to attach the decision.

You can see it here:

https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/the-bai-has-rejected-my-complaint-about-the-joe-duffy-programme-on-life-loans.223698/

Treppen

You were looking for positive experiences for balance.

Maybe there wasn't any?

I'm sure some people had positive experiences with Bernie Madoff too! But the negative experiences still have a case to answer.

neris

Joe Duffy has an agenda against Bank of Ireland for some reason. Remember his calls in 2008 or 2009 for people to run to the bank and take their money out and put it in the post office

KevRossi

neris wrote: »

Joe Duffy has an agenda against Bank of Ireland for some reason. Remember his calls in 2008 or 2009 for people to run to the bank and take their money out and put it in the post office

A lot of RTE staff with the same financial advisor lost a shedload of money in bank shares. Pat Kenny openly admits to losing money on them.

Duffy has mentioned that he 'lost his pension/savings' at least once, so I can only assume he had money in shares and he blames the BoI for this.

It's the same with Ryanair, he had a major chip on his shoulder about them for purely personal reasons.

He's totally unprofessional, let's his personal anger and personal bias cloud his direction on a topic. Typical tabloid fodder.

I don't know the backstory here, that topic only rings a vague bell. I just want to say it's good that people should communicate with the BAI when a programme doesn't meet their expectations of fairness.

It is surprising that RTÉ didn't reply to the BAI. It might even be described as disrespectful. I suppose they thought they had a strong case.
People are right to complain when they think the national broadcaster, especially, falls short. They have no commercial rival, so this helps to keep them on their toes.

BrendanBurgess

A Lamb Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I

It is surprising that RTÉ didn't reply to the BAI. It might even be described as disrespectful..

I was very surprised too as I have a lot of experience of an exchange of questions and answers and claim and response in dealing with the Financial Services Ombudsman.

However, RTE said that they had said what they wanted to say in their direct response to me before I went to the BAI.

What annoyed me was that the BAI did not insist that RTE answer my questions about whether they had callers with a positive experience who were not put through.

Brendan

Former Former Former

Sounds like you got a fair hearing but just don't like the outcome, tbh.

meeeeh

So people are complaining about a show full of complainers.

Personally I think that laws in Ireland requesting balance are bit too draconian. Sometimes there can't be any reasonable balance. I say that as someone who changes the station the moment Duffy comes on and thinks his show is making no positive contribution to society.

Furze99

Former Former Former wrote: »

Sounds like you got a fair hearing but just don't like the outcome, tbh.

meeeeh wrote: »

So people are complaining about a show full of complainers.

Personally I think that laws in Ireland requesting balance are bit too draconian. Sometimes there can't be any reasonable balance. I say that as someone who changes the station the moment Duffy comes on and thinks his show is making no positive contribution to society.

IIRC, Duffy had an 'agenda' that day - that 'Life Loans' were bad and that was it, end of story. If he had stuck to that agenda, no one would bat an eyelid. But 'for balance' he had the OP above on, who is a fairly know 'financial expert' and respected for his advice. The OP gave the facts relating to these loans, the information that was given out at time. This didn't suit Duffy's agenda, nor the callers put on, who were basically complaining that their inheritance had been whittled away by the deceased who had taken out life loans.

It then became painfully obvious how one sided Duffy's agenda was and that's where the question of balance comes in. Given the age profile of the listeners to the programme and that these loans are geared towards older people who might find use or not for these loans, it was pretty irresponsible of him to cover the topic in such a one sided way. Personally I find the programme and Duffy guilty as charged on this issue.

meeeeh

I'm discussing the show that I don't listen to so my opinion is a bit irrelevant. Op might be an expert on the thing but in the end it's a commercial product and no broadcaster should be required to be unbiased about commercial products (unless there is defamation or lies stated about the product).

plodder

BrendanBurgess wrote: »

What annoyed me was that the BAI did not insist that RTE answer my questions about whether they had callers with a positive experience who were not put through.

That's the only part of your complaint I agree with. While I agree with their point about "artificial balance" if it was the case that callers with a positive experience were not put through, that would have been totally unacceptable. If the show is all about listeners phoning in to tell their stories, they should not have filtered out any that didn't suit the agenda.

And to be clear, I'm just saying they should have answered the question. Not that I think they did fail to put through any such callers. If anything, it would be typical LL to have a shouting match between middle aged people worried about their inheritance, and OAPs having a ball, spending it :pac:

bossdrum

meeeeh wrote: »

Op might be an expert on the thing but in the end it's a commercial product and no broadcaster should be required to be unbiased about commercial products (unless there is defamation or lies stated about the product).

Well it's good that you agree so that the broadcaster was wrong. There were lies told about the product from the callers. Brendan Burgess produced evidence of the lies but Duffy didn't put this to the aggrieved relatives and just carried on with sob stories.

Treppen

bossdrum wrote: »

Well it's good that you agree so that the broadcaster was wrong. There were lies told about the product from the callers. Brendan Burgess produced evidence of the lies but Duffy didn't put this to the aggrieved relatives and just carried on with sob stories.

Maybe it's up to the seller of the product to defend their position and not a third party.

meeeeh

bossdrum wrote: »

Well it's good that you agree so that the broadcaster was wrong. There were lies told about the product from the callers. Brendan Burgess produced evidence of the lies but Duffy didn't put this to the aggrieved relatives and just carried on with sob stories.

Look someone who I presume is selling the product is facilitated to talk about them. OP didn't need to go on but he did. He has a position of authority and free exposure, unless he was defamed they really can't demand people with positive experiences are put on the programme to talk about the product.

It's like someone from Vintners association demanding callers with positive experience with drinking alcohol drinks are also put on.

As a separate observation there is no positive exposure on Joe Duffy show for businesses because whingers will whinge and all it can happen is that you end up being the butt of jokes from plebs that actually listen to his nonsense.

McGinniesta

As my old dad says "what can you expect from a pig only a grunt"

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

It's like someone from Vintners association demanding callers with positive experience with drinking alcohol drinks are also put on.

It's nothing like that. Alcohol is a health hazard, it is unambiguously bad. This was a way for elderly people to release equity from their homes (if I am correctly remembering it, but I'm not familiar with the details)

To talk about life loans as expensive seems redundant. They're expensive to people who were looking forward to an inheritance. The person who is enjoying the equity will suffer no material loss.

Might try and find a link to that thread. I'm somewhat sure there was broad support for the OP's point.

Thread here
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058148452&page=258

Treppen

A Lamb Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's nothing like that. Alcohol is a health hazard, it is unambiguously bad.


This was a way for elderly people to release equity from their homes (if I am correctly remembering it, but I'm not familiar with the details)

To talk about life loans as expensive seems redundant. They're expensive to people who were looking forward to an inheritance. The person who is enjoying the equity will suffer no material loss.

Might try and find a link to that thread. I'm somewhat sure there was broad support for the OP's point.

I just had a beer, how is that bad, I feel fine?

Treppen

Treppen wrote: »

I just had a beer, how is that bad, I feel fine?

No great harm, I'm sure, but you'd be better off with some cash in your pocket.

Whatever about the idea of a life loan, the actual product is fairly bad.

bossdrum

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Whatever about the idea of a life loan, the actual product is fairly bad.

A person with a house and little income wants a big chunk of cash.
The bank gives them cash in return for a substantial value of house when they are dead. The person that owns the house dies so it doesn't affect them. The bank then rightfully expects to get paid what they are owed.
It seems like a good deal to me.
The only people cribbing and moaning are the relatives that expected to inherit a house and didn't know about the loan.

Flowras

BrendanBurgess wrote: »

The Joe Duffy programme discussed Bank of Ireland Life Loans and it was covered in this thread:



I complained informally to RTE and they didn't respond.

I made a formal complaint to RTE and they did respond, rejecting it.

I then complained to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.

RTE chose not to respond to the BAI.

The BAI put no questions to RTE

The BAI rejected my complaint.


Here are the key bits which I find most interesting

2) "No requirement for artificial balance"
The Forum considered the complainant’s view that the programme did not meet the requirements of
fairness in the Code by having just one person out of all the callers speak in defence of Life Loans. The
Forum noted that appropriate implementation of the fairness principle should not be taken to mean that
an ‘artificial balance’ is required in order to comply with the Code, nor should it be taken to imply that
equal allocation airtime is always necessary to achieve fairness. The Forum was satisfied that callers
were facilitated in telling their personal stories and a financial advisor, the complainant, was given ample
time to express his views in defence of Life Loans.

So having 17 callers attack a product and only one explaining it is balance. Putting through a caller who had a positive experience of the product would be "artificial balance."

3) "Joe Duffy is known for this and the listeners expect it."

The Forum noted the complainants claims that the programme presenter’s views on Life Loans were
clear and his comments and tone, overall, were prejudiced and biased. The Code recognises that some
current affairs programmes are synonymous with personalities, where the manner in which the presenter
presents or interviews contributors can be keenly anticipated by audiences. Often the nature and style
of the presenter is a key factor in what engages audiences and draws them into consideration and debate
on matters of public controversy and current public debate. The Code seeks to prevent a partisan
position being advocated by the presenter and to guard against a presenter using the programme to
pursue an agenda. The Forum noted that this presenter’s style is well known and is often sympathetic
to callers to elicit their stories. The presenter did, at times, repeat some of the claims made by callers,
but also made comments in defence of some aspects of Life Loans and facilitated one caller in giving
their views in defence of Life Loans.

Perhaps you should have filled your boots with bank shares instead ?

Doodah7

Flowras wrote: »

Perhaps you should have filled your boots with bank shares instead ?

Sorry what???

Doodah7

Doodah7 wrote: »

Sorry what???

That user's been banned for another post. You may ask them again under whatever guise they reappear.

CoBo55

Flowras wrote: »

Perhaps you should have filled your boots with bank shares instead ?

That was the Op's famous glib statement on the radio when the country as a whole was hours away from becoming a banana republic.

CoBo55

bossdrum wrote: »

A person with a house and little income wants a big chunk of cash.
The bank gives them cash in return for a substantial value of house when they are dead. The person that owns the house dies so it doesn't affect them. The bank then rightfully expects to get paid what they are owed.
It seems like a good deal to me.
The only people cribbing and moaning are the relatives that expected to inherit a house and didn't know about the loan.

You didn't mention the extortionate interest rates being charged on these loans or the extremely dodgy selling practices being used by agents. It isn't true that the only people cribbing as you put it were beneficiaries, one woman was at her wits end worrying about this debt and the rate at which it was growing, she actually wished she were dead so it would stop accruing.

bossdrum

CoBo55 wrote: »

You didn't mention the extortionate interest rates being charged on these loans or the extremely dodgy selling practices being used by agents. It isn't true that the only people cribbing as you put it were beneficiaries, one woman was at her wits end worrying about this debt and the rate at which it was growing, she actually wished she were dead so it would stop accruing.

I don't think you understand how the product works?

The woman should not have been worried about the debt growing because she will never have to pay it back. It's only collected when she dies from the sale of the house. As far as I can recall, the problem was that she was living longer than expected and there wouldn't be much inheritance left for her concerned relatives.
Maybe those relatives should have lent her an interest free lump sum for the windows/holidays and all this could have been avoided?

CoBo55

bossdrum wrote: »

I don't think you understand how the product works?

The woman should not have been worried about the debt growing because she will never have to pay it back. It's only collected when she dies from the sale of the house. As far as I can recall, the problem was that she was living longer than expected and there wouldn't be much inheritance left for her concerned relatives.
Maybe those relatives should have lent her an interest free lump sum for the windows/holidays and all this could have been avoided?

Yes I do understand how it works but that woman was very stressed for the exact reasons you outlined. How about the bank giving her an interest free loan for her windows/doors? No? after all I'm sure she paid hefty interest on the mortgage. Maybe stopping the interest after so many years? or better again, actually engaging with the woman and saying, right you've borrowed X we stop the interest now and your beneficiaries pay us Y when you die. Y obviously being a lot higher than X

plodder

CoBo55 wrote: »

Yes I do understand how it works but that woman was very stressed for the exact reasons you outlined. How about the bank giving her an interest free loan for her windows/doors? No? after all I'm sure she paid hefty interest on the mortgage. Maybe stopping the interest after so many years? or better again, actually engaging with the woman and saying, right you've borrowed X we stop the interest now and your beneficiaries pay us Y when you die. Y obviously being a lot higher than X

Why would they give out interest free loans? The problem is they don't get their money back until after the house is sold. So, the interest keeps accruing until then. Though I think they should be forced to disclose the APR up front in the advertising, so people know what they are getting into. I don't really understand why it should be more expensive than regular mortgages.

BPKS

CoBo55 wrote: »

Yes I do understand how it works but that woman was very stressed for the exact reasons you outlined. How about the bank giving her an interest free loan for her windows/doors? No? after all I'm sure she paid hefty interest on the mortgage. Maybe stopping the interest after so many years? or better again, actually engaging with the woman and saying, right you've borrowed X we stop the interest now and your beneficiaries pay us Y when you die. Y obviously being a lot higher than X

Maybe the beneficiaries of her will should have given her an interest free loan for the windows and doors of the house they will inherit.

The J Stands for Jay

meeeeh wrote: »

So people are complaining about a show full of complainers.

Personally I think that laws in Ireland requesting balance are bit too draconian. Sometimes there can't be any reasonable balance. I say that as someone who changes the station the moment Duffy comes on and thinks his show is making no positive contribution to society.

It seems a bit odd that they'll have antivaxxers and other conspiracy typed on to give balance on other shoes, but nothing for this type of thing

The J Stands for Jay

Furze99 wrote: »

their inheritance had been whittled away by the deceased who had taken out life loans.

What a terrible attitude to have.

naraicjul

IMO, the BAI was right to reject the complaint for the reasons they outlined.

The product currently being marketed is potentially useful for some people although the interest rate is excessive.

I have little doubt that previous versions of this product did have some very unsavoury/dodgy sales practices - as mentioned by some of the callers.

It is possible that Joe did have a bit of an agenda but, from memory, the OP's performance on the call wasn't great either.

McGaggs

McGaggs wrote: »

What a terrible attitude to have.

It's obnoxious, isn't it.

I'm going to troll my kids by leaving everything to the cats' home, and I don't even like cats.

Their education, and encouragement in general, is all that children should expect. I'm sure we all know older people who scrimp and save in their latter years, for what? to leave it to adult children who are capable of work? Nah, feck that.

CoBo55

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's obnoxious, isn't it.

I'm going to troll my kids by leaving everything to the cats' home, and I don't even like cats.

Their education, and encouragement in general, is all that children should expect. I'm sure we all know older people who scrimp and save in their latter years, for what? to leave it to adult children who are capable of work? Nah, feck that.

Leaving everything to the cats home is better than one of our greedy banks taking it by deception.

bossdrum

CoBo55 wrote: »

Leaving everything to the cats home is better than one of our greedy banks taking it by deception.

If these elderly people told their relatives that they were leaving everything to the cats home then I doubt there would have been any callers to liveline about the greedy banks and the life loans.

I dislike the banks as much as the most people but there wasn't any deception by them here. Brendan Burgess produced the brochure and all details were clearly stated on it despite callers earlier saying they weren't.

The only deception was on the part of liveline by letting ordinary listeners think that old people were taken advantage of and by not allowing the bogus figures told by participants to be questioned by Burgess.

CoBo55

bossdrum wrote: »

If these elderly people told their relatives that they were leaving everything to the cats home then I doubt there would have been any callers to liveline about the greedy banks and the life loans.

I dislike the banks as much as the most people but there wasn't any deception by them here. Eddie Hobbs produced the brochure and all details were clearly stated on it despite callers earlier saying they weren't.

The only deception was on the part of liveline by letting ordinary listeners think that old people were taken advantage of and by not allowing the bogus figures told by participants to be questioned by Hobbs.

So do you think the banks are right in doing what they're doing and that liveline kept hoards of well wishers off the air? Hundreds of satisfied customers denied their 15 minutes of fame, seriously? Hobbs? Nothing left to be said about that joker that hasn't been said already:mad:

Spry Finance are advertising all the time presently with this type of product. So Liveline certainly duf not act as an discouragement, maybe quite the opposite. Planted it into people's minds.

gordongekko

Brendan do you own shares in companies that provide "Life Loans"?

CoBo55

gordongekko wrote: »

Brendan do you own shares in companies that provide "Life Loans"?

He has them in his boots...

Rket4000

CoBo55 wrote: »

So do you think the banks are right in doing what they're doing and that liveline kept hoards of well wishers off the air? Hundreds of satisfied customers denied their 15 minutes of fame, seriously? Hobbs? Nothing left to be said about that joker that hasn't been said already:mad:

There will never be people defending the banks because most people default to the "banks are evil" narrative even if they don't know the facts. In the case of these products, the elderly person can keep their house for life but get the money they need when they need it. If they are stressed by the "accruing debt" because they live beyond average age, its most likely because their relatives who see their inheritance disappearing and they're complaining and causing the stress for the elderly person.

gordongekko

gordongekko wrote: »

Brendan do you own shares in companies that provide "Life Loans"?

Nearly everyone with a pension does, in fairness, but they're a small part of the business activity of most financial institutions who offer them. And yeah, of course there are also small institutions who specialise in this product. This particular equity-release segment related to the Bank of Ireland, wasn't it?

yosser hughes

I complained about this show too. Initially RTE thanked me for my 'feedback'. I then had to explain that this was not feedback, it was a complaint and that is why I emailed it to complaints@rte.ie and was quite clear in my email.

Then you will get a reply saying okay we will pass it on. Then I eventually got a reply from the producer asking me on what grounds I was complaining and I gave examples of where I felt Joe Duffy breached the BAI codes. etc. The producer disagreed and advised that liveline is not a 'current affairs' show and is 'caller led' and therefore not subject to the rules of impartiality and fairness etc. I disagreed with this and in line with the correct process would be progressing it further.
After that, you can bring it to BAI which I did, who rejected it also; saying the 14 day time limit had run out. I wasn't aware there was such a limit. So lesson learned there. I'm not sure why there is such a limit but there you go I should have looked it up, my own fault.

Whatever about whether you agree with Brendan or not, regarding the lifeloans product is kind of irrelevant. The point is, RTE and Joe Duffy are conducting a programme that frequently gives way to the whims, biases and ignorance of the host. It does not 'inform' a lot of the time and sometimes does the opposite. Many of the callers on this 'caller led' show uttered mis-truths and gave incorrect information, which Joe Duffy did nothing to correct. This should not happen, it is mis-information.

I thought the way Brendan was treated when he was on the show was a disgrace whether you agree with him or not about lifeloans, is immaterial in my opinion.

Anyway, more people should take the time to complain, as RTE are in receipt of your money and try to pass themselves off as the bastion of fairness and reliable information. This isn't the case and they need to be held accountable and at least asked to explain themselves more often. Maybe, just maybe, they might up their game if more people did what Brendan did.

CoBo55

yosser hughes wrote: »

I complained about this show too. Initially RTE thanked me for my 'feedback'. I then had to explain that this was not feedback, it was a complaint and that is why I emailed it to complaints@rte.ie and was quite clear in my email.

Then you will get a reply saying okay we will pass it on. Then I eventually got a reply from the producer asking me on what grounds I was complaining and I gave examples of where I felt Joe Duffy breached the BAI codes. etc. The producer disagreed and advised that liveline is not a 'current affairs' show and is 'caller led' and therefore not subject to the rules of impartiality and fairness etc. I disagreed with this and in line with the correct process would be progressing it further.
After that, you can bring it to BAI which I did, who rejected it also; saying the 14 day time limit had run out. I wasn't aware there was such a limit. So lesson learned there. I'm not sure why there is such a limit but there you go I should have looked it up, my own fault.

Whatever about whether you agree with Brendan or not, regarding the lifeloans product is kind of irrelevant. The point is, RTE and Joe Duffy are conducting a programme that frequently gives way to the whims, biases and ignorance of the host. It does not 'inform' a lot of the time and sometimes does the opposite. Many of the callers on this 'caller led' show uttered mis-truths and gave incorrect information, which Joe Duffy did nothing to correct. This should not happen, it is mis-information.

I thought the way Brendan was treated when he was on the show was a disgrace whether you agree with him or not about lifeloans, is immaterial in my opinion.

Anyway, more people should take the time to complain, as RTE are in receipt of your money and try to pass themselves off as the bastion of fairness and reliable information. This isn't the case and they need to be held accountable and at least asked to explain themselves more often. Maybe, just maybe, they might up their game if more people did what Brendan did.

Did you ring the show at the time?

Pelvis Parsley

Well said, Yosser.

CoBo55

Pelvis Parsley wrote: »

Well said, Yosser.

What? He didn't say or do anything constructive in that tome. Did you ring the show on the days in question to correct the mistruths as you put it?

CoBo55

CoBo55 wrote: »

Did you ring the show at the time?

CoBo55 wrote: »

Did you ring the show on the days in question to correct the mistruths as you put it?

Why are you going around asking people if they rang the show? Is there some point you're driving at here, like only callers who tried to get on-air can complain? That's clearly nonsense, with respect.

Treppen

CoBo55 wrote: »

What? He didn't say or do anything constructive in that tome. Did you ring the show on the days in question to correct the mistruths as you put it?

Why should you have to ring in the show at the time.
It should be your right to complain about any program at any stage (with 2 weeks of course!).
Plenty of times I've rang and texted shows when they have inaccuracies, plenty of times nothing was done, especially when there's a pile-on and producers are keen to let the mob rule take hold for entrainment purposes (as is Joe Duffy's schtick).

So there should be a formal procedure to complain after the event (just ask Joe Brolly :pac:).
Asking if someone rang it at the time is a bit of a distraction to the issue at hand imo.

Even though Joe is an "entertainment" show he still has the potential to harm people if mob rule takes hold , and Joe stokes the flames.
In fairness to Joe he does a lot for focusing on vulnerable elderly people.

Pelvis Parsley

If he did ring in, and didn't fulsomely agree with Jwoah's usually boorish opinions, he wouldn't get on anyway-so what's the point you're driving at, caller?

tdf7187

The BAI/RTE complaints regime is unnecessarily cumbersome and seems deliberately put together to discourage complainants.

(Ironically, a few years' ago, I considered making a complaint regarding a programme which featured the thread starter on another matter. Mr Burgess was advocating a reduction in unemployment benefit in spite of the rates of increase failing to keep pace with inflation in recent years. I felt the programme gave his views undue weight without sufficient time/balance to the other side. I didn't bother pursuing it as the detail required to submit a complain was too onerous.)