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 ?

[PurpleMoonlight]

What does it matter?

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

[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?

[PurpleMoonlight]

drainbrain said:

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

It would depend on the context.

I would say:

If you asked for advice and this was their response then it's advice.

If it's a mailshot to thousands of customers of which you were one then it's not advice.

[JulianPH]

I would agree it is the context that would be the decisive factor. "Have a look through our recommended funds" is completely different to "We seriously recommend you invest in this".

The FCA have also been know to apply the test 'if the client believes it was advice then it was advice'. Mad, but true.

Anyway, as Purple has said, there has been no loss so I can't see any merit in spending money seeking damages.

[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

[Sarnie]

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?

[JulianPH]

drainbrain said:

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.

Can you prove you were the only person in the country to receive this unsolicited letter? Even then does that alter anything? You can't sue for damages unless you have suffered a loss and as you ignored the letter and didn't invest then you have no loss.

Massive respect if you are going to try and take on a bank under Tort law for a duty of care though.

[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.

[bad company]

The dealer advised me to buy their GAP insurance when I bought a new BMW earlier this month. I declined.

Should I sue them for advising me to buy something I didn't want or need?

[NickCQ]

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.

[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.

[Ginge R]

drainbrain said:

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.

I'm not sure if it applies to your case, but the Fraud Act 2006 etc has massive implications for financial institutions and consumers, although the Financial Ombudsman can only investigate regulated financial activity. A complainant can make any allegation, and it might be the case that aspects of the complaint itself have to be the subject of jurisdiction before deciding whether or not to proceed in all or in part. It might be the case too, that you received a generic financial promotion that was misleading and should have been properly checked by the bank's compliancy dept before they sent it out?

Watch 'Inside Job' on Netflix, very recently put on the platform (I think).

[TwigtheWonderkid]

bad company said:

The dealer advised me to buy their GAP insurance when I bought a new BMW earlier this month. I declined.

Should I sue them for advising me to buy something I didn't want or need?

No doubt there are circumstances that could arise whereby buying GAP insurance would have been financially beneficial to you. Somebody advising me to insure a potential loss that I deem to be not worth insuring as I'm prepared to carry the risk myself isn't necessarily bad advice.

[bad company]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

bad company said:

The dealer advised me to buy their GAP insurance when I bought a new BMW earlier this month. I declined.

Should I sue them for advising me to buy something I didn't want or need?

No doubt there are circumstances that could arise whereby buying GAP insurance would have been financially beneficial to you. Somebody advising me to insure a potential loss that I deem to be not worth insuring as I'm prepared to carry the risk myself isn't necessarily bad advice.

It's a new car which the dealer knew full well was covered 'new for old ' in its first year. I'd call that mis-selling.

[sidicks]

bad company said:

It's a new car which the dealer knew full well was covered 'new for old ' in its first year. I'd call that mis-selling.

How would the dealer know the details of your insurance policy?

And was the dealer advising you or just informing you of various products that were available?

[bad company]

sidicks said:

bad company said:

It's a new car which the dealer knew full well was covered 'new for old ' in its first year. I'd call that mis-selling.

How would the dealer know the details of your insurance policy?

And was the dealer advising you or just informing you of various products that were available?

1. Because I told him

2. The dealer did not want to take no for an answer. As it happens I may well buy gap insurance when the car is a year old, not from the dealer tho.

I did not make a complaint nor would I advocate doing so. Sometimes we have to deal with stuff ourselves and take responsibility for our decisions.

I can't see that the op has any complaint about the advice from the bank but we don't have the details of the other stuff between him and his bank.

Edited by bad company on Tuesday 18th April 21:04