Good riddance to the feckers I say

I am pie wrote: »

AnOrdinaryJoe wrote: »

Insults from you are received with glee, although you could be more creative.

To your questions, No & No.

Vent it away Joe, we are listening Joe. Keep at it Joe. Good man yerself Joe.

zzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzz

This is reference to just one bank employees/officials work related activities, the activity in question re fraudulent PPI selling..... there are other similarly fraudulent activities involving bank employees/officials.

I apologise in advance (to Nemeses, Ian pie, lkionm, Mikemac1, Old and Grey, Valeta) for the 'fact' that this information (from a UK Parliament publication) has been lifted from t'internet and the cut and paste nature of my post, etc.... possibly this may be assumed in some quarters to automatically render it untrue....... maybe it automatically renders material sourced in such a way to be untrue (students and other researchers ye's are f**ked).

I acknowledge also that those bank employees/officials who were fraudulently persuading and advising individuals may actually have been the relatively small number of senior executives at each bank wearing replica rubber masks of individuals working for their organisations and who have sourced similar clothes, etc as real people working for the banks and that they had perfected some form of replication of themselves process so they could be in many places at the same time.... and that those employees/officials that the senior executives had replicated had themselves no idea that these imposters were persuading and 'advising' individuals using their identities.

I accept also that, although various credible sources have made it clear that fraudulent PPI mis-selling continued for several years AFTER issue had been flagged, the 'cloned' imposters doing the selling may have simply misunderstood the difference between fraud and not fraud, between right and wrong, they may have simply misunderstood the difference between ripping fellow citizens, etc off and not ripping fellow citizens, etc off, and that they may be 'nice people'.

---

"they were taught to play the system to the detriment of clients".

‘Which? conducted research and warned of PPI mis-selling in 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007’

‘Remuneration policies for frontline staff: Inappropriate financial incentives for frontline staff played a role in virtually all mis-selling scandals in the financial services industry’

from: www. Parliament.uk (www.parliamentpublications.uk)

Session 2012-13

Panel on mis-selling and cross-selling

Consumers mis-led at the point of sale: PPI was sold alongside the credit product, which led to a number of problems for consumers. As our research shows, for years many lenders gave consumers loan quotes already including PPI – automatically assuming that consumers needed to purchase PPI. They are thus led to believe that PPI is an integral part of their credit application, rather than an add-on product. They were frequently asked to make a quick decision whether to take PPI or not, with little or inadequate information about the product. Consumers were also misled to believe that PPI will improve their chances of obtaining credit. In other cases, consumers were put under inappropriate pressure to buy PPI and lenders failed to obtain clear consent from the consumer that they wished to purchase the policy.

Written evidence from Which? (SJ 015)

Executive summary

1. Which? believes that the prevailing culture within retail banks is focused on sales rather than on serving customers. This sales-based culture manifests itself in the many mis-selling scandals in the banking sector – including precipice bonds, endowment mortgages, ID theft insurance, risky investment funds and Payment Protection Insurance.

2. This evidence provides details of four recent mis-selling scandals involving the banking industry. It provides the background to these mis-selling scandals, the root causes of the mis-selling and the conduct of the banking groups following the emergence of the scandals.

Ø Payment Protection Insurance: This is the biggest mis-selling scandal in the history of retail financial services. Over £13 billion has already set aside by banks and building societies to compensate consumers. Which? first warned about the dangers of PPI in the late 1990s and have continually highlighted the poor value of this insurance and criticised the inappropriate sales practices.

Ø ID theft insurance: These insurance products were sold to consumers directly by their bank or in partnership with an insurance company. Important elements of these products provided very limited or no benefits to consumers. A number of major high-street banks entered into partnership with an insurance company so that when consumers phoned up to activate their credit/debit card they were given the hard-sell for these products.

Ø NHFA investment products: Consumers seeking advice about how to fund their long-term care were sold expensive and inappropriate investment products by NHFA.

Ø Barclays investment funds: Consumers seeking investment advice were sold inappropriate and excessively risky funds by Barclays investment advisers.

3. Which? believes that the root causes of these mis-selling scandals include:

Ø A prevailing sales-based culture within retail banks: This placed the achievement of sales targets over the long-term needs of the customer. Our recent investigation revealed that frontline staff are still under pressure to meet sales targets. [1]

Ø Remuneration policies for frontline staff: Inappropriate financial incentives for frontline staff played a role in virtually all mis-selling scandals in the financial services industry. Bonus schemes for PPI meant that advisers at Alliance and Leicester received six times as much bonus for selling a loan with PPI as for selling a loan without PPI.

Ø A tick-box approach to compliance rather than an emphasis on professional standards: Rather than asking whether a product or sales process provided fair treatment for the customer, some banks merely considered whether it complied with the detailed rules.

Ø Poor product design: Poor quality, complex and expensive products increased the risk of mis-selling. The features of some PPI and ID theft insurance products meant that they were not suitable to be sold to any consumers.

Ø Misleading or poor quality sales processes: Banks automatically included PPI when consumers asked for a personal loan. They failed to explain the product or its price to consumers and failed to ensure that it was suitable. Investment advisers recommended expensive and risky investment products without checking a consumer’s attitude to risk. Banks failed to monitor the quality of the sales process.

Ø Lack of effective competition: There was a significant lack of effective competition around the purchase of ancillary products such as PPI and ID theft insurance. There was a lack of competitive pressure on price as it was difficult to shop around and the price of the product was complex. Instead of competing for consumers by designing better value and better quality products, firms secured distribution by paying very high levels of commission to banks for selling their products. These commissions could reach 87% of the PPI premium.

Ø Banks ignored the warning signs of mis-selling: Banks failed to heed the warnings of mis-selling from consumer groups and politicians. Which? conducted research and warned of PPI mis-selling in 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007. Banks also failed to learn from customer complaints and feedback. If banks had acted on these warnings, then mis-selling could have been prevented at a far earlier stage.

Ø A weak regulatory approach: The financial penalties imposed on banks for mis-selling PPI were a tiny proportion of the revenue gained from selling the products. Despite the widespread poor practice, the only senior executive of a large organisation to be the subject of enforcement action is the Chief Executive of Land of Leather – a sofa shop.

4. We are also concerned that once problems of mis-selling were exposed, some banks spent several years rejecting legitimate complaints. Some banks and their trade association, the BBA, challenged new rules from the Competition Commission and the FSA which would have led to improvements for consumers.

---

Richard Lloyd, executive director of the consumer group Which?, said the figures showed banks were still letting their customers down: "The Financial Conduct Authority must take tough action against any bank found dragging its feet in settling complaints. It's time for a big change in banking, with banks that work for customers, not bankers."

Lloyds Banking Group has confirmed it is retraining staff handling insurance mis-selling claims from customers, after an undercover reporter revealed numerous allegations of misbehaviour.

The Times said that a staff member underwent recruitment and training to work as a payment protection insurance (PPI) complaint handler and discovered that "they were taught to play the system to the detriment of clients".

However, the reporter discovered that some of the original loan salesmen had forged documents and was told some paperwork was missing from customers' files.

The paper added that complaint handlers (more senior executive imposters perhaps) were told to effectively turn a blind eye to the risk of fraud, and that most customers would give up pursuing PPI mis-selling claims when the bank's first rejection was given.

---

My last couple of posts may raise the question..... is someone who works for a bank has engaged in 'commercial activities' to which ripping off other ordinary people, people like me, people like my mates, my neighbours, my extended family is de rigeur ..... and I run into him from time to time at the local garage, in the local pub, the supermarket, at the school, etc...... is he or she really the nice person I thought they were.

Would they rip me off if they had the chance ?

These are not nice questions, unsettling perhaps... sure it's easy blame the top boyos where undoubtedly most of 'the blame' lies.... sure no-one from our level in society, people just like us, would do anything bad, like rip me off.......

Well 'they' f**king did............ as I stated before...... the fat cats, even though it is them who have benefitted and who do benefit the most from sharp practices and the like. didn't do it on their own and couldn't have done it on their own.

I know this is a concept, an unpalatable and inconvenient truth which some appear reluctant to acknowledge..... doesn't change THE FACTS (there I go again...... using capital letters) though.

AnOrdinaryJoe wrote: »

No you don't, you can't possibly from this sort of medium...... don't assume you 'know my type'.... you don't know (you might assume that you do) what sort, or 'type', of person I am.

Nope, nope and nope.

Ulster Bank is a subsidiary of 82% UK Taxpayer owned Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).......but if you check you will probably find that Ulster Bank in Ireland is a registered business in Ireland, regulated cy the Central Bank of Ireland and it's senior personnel subject to Irish Fitness and Probity regulations....... in otherwords an Irish bank re the Ulster Bank 'bit'.

Either way, It's irrelevant on some levels... you're splitting hairs for the sake of it..... it's a f**king corrupt and fraudulently operating bank which has been up to it's neck in criminal activity, and it operates in Ireland....... that's enough.

---

Originally Posted by mikemac1

I know your type OP

The kind of person who complains to the nurse you pay their wages, upsets the teenager glass collector over the price of a pint and declares to bank staff that you own their branch.

And you got your facts wrong, Ulster Bank is not Irish

---

Response please mikemac1....... try to make it accurate.

I am pie wrote: »

Keep her lit Joe, we're on tenterhooks here.

Still waiting for the slightest, smallest shread of evidence that the average joe was in on it. Since you have none, nada, zip, zero you have taken to copying and pasting irrelevant rants. Which is terrific, if not, well..totally irrelevant to them barely intelligible point you were struggling to make.

Now, wipe that nasty frothy foam away from your mouth and have another go, tis great to see that we have internet connections under bridges these days.

Ah...... the voice of reason......

And where is your 'reasoning', despite the many meaningless materials in the public domain suggesting otherwise, that no 'ordinary people' were involved in unacceptable and unethical activities against other ordinary people ?

I have to review my unreasonably held views that this is the case cos you say/imply so, same as re various other situations where, not knowing the names of individuals concerned must mean that they never happened.

I haven't a clue who those people who 'built' dodgy factories in Bangladesh which collapsed on people killing and maiming thousands are........ must mean it never happened !

I haven't a friggin' clue who any of those who on various occasions bombed towns in Ireland and in NI...... must mean those incidents never happened !

I haven't a clue who those ordinary people who were connected to i.e.murdering approximately 10,000 persons per annum in Mexico....... must mean it never happened !

You're an absolute genius IAP.....

AnOrdinaryJoe wrote: »

Yeah yeah IAP..... still, where's your argument that no ordinary person was involved in any sort of unacceptable or unethical conduct or activity against other ordinary persons.

You bang on and say that's the case....... so, who was it that 'signed up' or deceived individuals regarding the likes of PPI mis-selling, branches where these sort of 'deals' were done ?

Maybe the bank branch you work in is staffed with toffs, etc..... but most bank branches I'm aware of have 'ordinary people' working in them.

None of this takes away the fact (oops..... there goes that word again) that the real villains are the boyos at the top, but neither does it take away the fact that those pricks couldn't have done it all on their own. That is a reality unfortunately, whether some dumb ass like yourself is able to see that.

Your next drivel please......

meant 'That is a reality unfortunately, whether some dumb ass like yourself is UNable to see that.

AnOrdinaryJoe wrote: »

Aah..... so Old and Grey can post a 'like'...... but not an argument to his previous completely inaccurate post.

Say no more.

C'mon for feck sake Old and Grey....... where's your argument, you being so direct and sure that RBS had not been connected to Libor fraud and all that ?

Could it be that you got it totally wrong.... and that you're not man enough to woman enough to simply state that to be the case ?

Nothing wrong for anyone to make a mistake..... but to not admit to same and to correct your position says more than an individual who, having made a mistake, admits to it and corrects his or her position. Just saying!

I am pie wrote: »

Joe, you are brightening the corners of an otherwise dull day. I will be so so disappointed should you ever actually come up with the tiniest iota of evidence confirming that the people in branch or lower levels where somehow involved.

Until then, thank you. Truly, thank you!

And thank you for help to illustrate to me how lucky I am that most of the persons I know and socialise with do not have the intellect of a gnat.

I am pie wrote: »

Joe, you are brightening the corners of an otherwise dull day. I will be so so disappointed should you ever actually come up with the tiniest iota of evidence confirming that the people in branch or lower levels where somehow involved.

Until then, thank you. Truly, thank you!

You see.... I don't see what evidently you appear to see..... or not see...... or refuse to see..... not a drop of froth around my gob to be seen.... I've looked, several times.... nope..no froth.

I am pie wrote: »

It's what we don't see though Joe.....isn't it Joe?

Evidence & The Chronic Lack Thereof. Not froth though, no Joe, forget about the froth. Worry about the evidence.

Do you see Joe?

Hey..... it's me ol mucker..... that's nice.