Weasels Ripped My Flesh!!

[drainbrain]

I'm involved in a big fat compensation row with one of our rotten financial institutions.

A small sideshow in the overall beef is interesting.

In 2013 it put in writing that it "seriously recommended" I take a course of action which, had I uptaken said recommendation, would have been instantly catastrophically damaging to me.

My legal advisers consider this as either indicative of the bank's incompetence or illustrative of a deliberate attempt to "murder" my business. Either way it must be considered as destructively foolish and incompetent advice and contrary to my best interests.

The weasels' counter is that "serious recommendation" isn't "advice".

So what does the team think? Are they the same thing? Or is the obligation to provide best advice circumvented by terming it 'serious recommendation' instead ?

[drainbrain]

PurpleMoonlight said:

What does it matter?

You didn't follow it so have suffered no loss.

I'm sure even the weasels understand that culpability for incompetent advice doesn't diminish if the client has enough sense to ignore it.

But that doesn't answer whether or not 'serious recommendation' and 'advice' are the same thing, does it?

[drainbrain]

I see what you're saying, but in this case it wasn't either. It was a part of an unsolicited letter to me alone.

And the sideshow issue (is 'serious recommendation' the same thing as 'advice') is something that has arisen within a quite seriously damaging catalogue of activities which are contained within an overall compensation case which even the bank itself agrees requires to be addressed.

Apparently this issue (of incompetent/malicious 'serious recommendation') has hardly been explored yet during the lengthy dismantlement of this particular institution's iniquities. There may be many others similarly affected including those who have followed the 'serious recommendations' directly or been influenced by them.

IMO when it enters court it isn't going to matter much if at all what the bank wants to call it. It's what the advice/serious recommendation was that'll be of primary importance rather than what they want to call it.

Edited by drainbrain on Sunday 16th April 13:39

[drainbrain]

Sarnie said:

I assume there is a bigger beef at play here?

Otherwise, why would you want to spend your time and money, chasing non-existent losses whether it was advice or not?

That's it. It's a brushstroke in a painting. A small sideshow outside a Big Top.

Having said that, in this case though not a major part it IS seen as contributive to and indicative of an overall incompetence/maliciousness which certainly did result in measurable loss.

These cases are really strange. Many of them leave the victim asking WHY they did all this stuff? Because in many cases the victims were creating no problem for the bank whatsoever and were actually adding to its profits. I've heard plenty of 'explanations' but none of them make much sense. Why would a business want to divest itself of profitable clients by damaging their businesses? Bonkers.

[drainbrain]

NickCQ said:

drainbrain said:

In 2013 it put in writing that it "seriously recommended" I take a course of action which, had I uptaken said recommendation, would have been instantly catastrophically damaging to me.

Out of interest, at the time were they interacting with you as a retail customer or a professional customer? If the latter, then they can obviously do much more in terms of sharp / misleading negotiating tactics whilst remaining on the right side of the law.

Well that's a story in itself. Strangely we were dealt with as retail customers at a time when by definition we could have been deemed (by turnover, etc) as a 'large organisation' and therefore professional clients. (That worked very well, and was a time of very satisfactory relationship and mutual profitability).

OTOH by the time all the monkey business began the high turnover business which had led to the transfer to corporate in the first place had been terminated and the bank had now decided to deal with us as professional customers. I recall asking to be transferred back to branch commercial management but that was refused - another poor decision on the bank's part imo.

I think things have progressed beyond the bank's requirement to merely adhere to what they can legally justify. There is now an endeavour to "put things right" via a formal complaints process which involves not illegal doings but 'wrong' doings. As the bank itself puts it : "we have acknowledged that some of our customers did not receive the level of service or understanding they should have done or, importantly, that they would receive now". And actually I think this is aimed primarily (though not solely) at the very thing you've highlighted - the treatment (exploitation?) of erstwhile non-sophisticated customers as professional clients.

A good bit of my own complaint (and loss) centres on what could broadly be described as "breach of contract" which is of course a matter of contract rather than tort law. But it's hoped that this new bank-generated complaints process will not require the matter to be progressed into court. However experience of previous 'complaints procedures' makes me prefer to use professional advisers to represent my position.