PPI let down

CabbageCat

midlifecrisis said:

Nothing immoral in screwing <whatever> over, they are  all counts.

And thus one justifies everything ever.

midlifecrisis

stickyfiddle said:

midlifecrisis said:

Nothing immoral in screwing banks over, they are  all counts.  

Except that you don't screw the bank over, you screw over its customers who then have to pay higher fees on everything.

Shareholders don't vote for smaller dividends when there's another option on the table.

not true, by that argument you can say let every business do and charge what it wants or all customers will have to pay more.

stickyfiddle

midlifecrisis said:

stickyfiddle said:

midlifecrisis said:

Nothing immoral in screwing banks over, they are  all counts.  

Except that you don't screw the bank over, you screw over its customers who then have to pay higher fees on everything.

Shareholders don't vote for smaller dividends when there's another option on the table.

not true, by that argument you can say let every business do and charge what it wants or all customers will have to pay more.

Is that not exactly how businesses work? Those who charge too little make no money and go out of business, those that charge too much have no customers and go out of business. 

Economics 101...

midlifecrisis

stickyfiddle said:

midlifecrisis said:

stickyfiddle said:

midlifecrisis said:

Nothing immoral in screwing banks over, they are  all counts.  

Except that you don't screw the bank over, you screw over its customers who then have to pay higher fees on everything.

Shareholders don't vote for smaller dividends when there's another option on the table.

not true, by that argument you can say let every business do and charge what it wants or all customers will have to pay more.

Is that not exactly how businesses work? Those who charge too little make no money and go out of business, those that charge too much have no customers and go out of business. 

Economics 101...

they are not like other businesses though,except if banks dont make enough money , we the taxpayer end up bailing them out.

Sporky

midlifecrisis said:

they are not like other businesses though,except if banks dont make enough money , we the taxpayer end up bailing them out.

And thus we end up back at the point that if you get money out of the banks, they get it back from all of us.

Besides which, take your original point:

midlifecrisis said:

Nothing immoral in screwing banks over, they are  all counts. 

...and apply that in reverse. They see that you're trying to screw them over, so there's nothing immoral (by your own logic) in them doing the same to you. When's it end?

midlifecrisis

Sporky said:

midlifecrisis said:

they are not like other businesses though,except if banks dont make enough money , we the taxpayer end up bailing them out.

And thus we end up back at the point that if you get money out of the banks, they get it back from all of us.

Besides which, take your original point:

midlifecrisis said:

Nothing immoral in screwing banks over, they are  all counts. 

...and apply that in reverse. They see that you're trying to screw them over, so there's nothing immoral (by your own logic) in them doing the same to you. When's it end?

we can all be holier than thou, so the banks have got to pay back money to people who either didnt realize they didnt have to pay it or were forced to buy useless insurances in the first place. The banks will go on in the same way, wont really affect them, and a few hundred thousand people will recieve a nice windfall. meanwhile people have been ripped off by banks, businesses have been bankrupted and lives torn apart by sharp practises, but hey, if you want to stand up for the banks your choice.

fretmeister

midlifecrisis said:

Sporky said:

midlifecrisis said:

they are not like other businesses though,except if banks dont make enough money , we the taxpayer end up bailing them out.

And thus we end up back at the point that if you get money out of the banks, they get it back from all of us.

Besides which, take your original point:

midlifecrisis said:

Nothing immoral in screwing banks over, they are  all counts. 

...and apply that in reverse. They see that you're trying to screw them over, so there's nothing immoral (by your own logic) in them doing the same to you. When's it end?

we can all be holier than thou, so the banks have got to pay back money to people who either didnt realize they didnt have to pay it or were forced to buy useless insurances in the first place. The banks will go on in the same way, wont really affect them, and a few hundred thousand people will recieve a nice windfall. meanwhile people have been ripped off by banks, businesses have been bankrupted and lives torn apart by sharp practises, but hey, if you want to stand up for the banks your choice.

He's not standing up for banks.

He is standing up for an acceptable code of behaviour that should apply to all, and pointing out that a breach by 1 party does not allow or justify a breach by another.

"an eye for an eye" is demonstrably the worst system of behaviour in history.

Sporky

midlifecrisis said:

we can all be holier than thou, so the banks have got to pay back money to people who either didnt realize they didnt have to pay it or were forced to buy useless insurances in the first place. The banks will go on in the same way, wont really affect them, and a few hundred thousand people will recieve a nice windfall. meanwhile people have been ripped off by banks, businesses have been bankrupted and lives torn apart by sharp practises, but hey, if you want to stand up for the banks your choice.

Yup - you certainly nailed the "holier than thou" bit there.

If you were actually miss-sold the PPI then reclaiming it is fine, but you were talking about "screwing banks over". Not the same.

midlifecrisis

Sporky said:

midlifecrisis said:

we can all be holier than thou, so the banks have got to pay back money to people who either didnt realize they didnt have to pay it or were forced to buy useless insurances in the first place. The banks will go on in the same way, wont really affect them, and a few hundred thousand people will recieve a nice windfall. meanwhile people have been ripped off by banks, businesses have been bankrupted and lives torn apart by sharp practises, but hey, if you want to stand up for the banks your choice.

Yup - you certainly nailed the "holier than thou" bit there.

If you were actually miss-sold the PPI then reclaiming it is fine, but you were talking about "screwing banks over". Not the same.

as i said, the banks will carry on doing what they do anyway, they will not go to the wall, they will get bailled out, if things get really bad,the lower paid bank workers who have little control over their destiny anyway will lose their jobs in merges takeovers etc. the high up bosses get their golden pensions/parachutes/handshakes and move on so you can never really "screw over the banks" in that sense. Once in a while people have an opportunity to get back some of what they put in and quite rightly they are entitled to take it.

midlifecrisis

what t.he banks did wasn't illegal, we are told, and what people are doing is also not illegal

fretmeister

midlifecrisis said:

what t.he banks did wasn't illegal, we are told, and what people are doing is also not illegal

If a policy was NOT mis-sold then claiming money back is illegal - it's fraud.

TTony

midlifecrisis said:
Once in a while people have an opportunity to get back some of what they put in and quite rightly they are entitled to take it.

midlifecrisis said:

Nothing immoral in screwing banks over, they are  all counts. 

Those are slightly different arguments.

Sporky

midlifecrisis said:

as i said, the banks will carry on doing what they do anyway, they will not go to the wall, they will get bailled out

With taxpayers money - so again, it's not the banks you're screwing over, it's everyone. I don't mind repeating that until you understand it.

midlifecrisis said:

you can never really "screw over the banks" in that sense

Starting to dawn on you?

midlifecrisis said:

Once in a while people have an opportunity to get back some of what they put in and quite rightly they are entitled to take it.

Yes; those who were miss-sold PPI have the legal and moral right to reclaim it. That's not at question. But it's very different from what you actually said, which was:

midlifecrisis said:

Nothing immoral in screwing banks over

Which I believe has been adequately shown to be untrue.

midlifecrisis

Sporky said:

midlifecrisis said:

as i said, the banks will carry on doing what they do anyway, they will not go to the wall, they will get bailled out

With taxpayers money - so again, it's not the banks you're screwing over, it's everyone. I don't mind repeating that until you understand it.

midlifecrisis said:

you can never really "screw over the banks" in that sense

Starting to dawn on you?



no, thats my point from the beginning. the fact that its taxpayers money means they are not like other businesses. you are not ripping off a small business trying to provide for a family, or leaving someone destitute unable to feed themselves.

midlifecrisis said:

Once in a while people have an opportunity to get back some of what they put in and quite rightly they are entitled to take it.

Yes; those who were miss-sold PPI have the legal and moral right to reclaim it. That's not at question. But it's very different from what you actually said, which was:

midlifecrisis said:

Nothing immoral in screwing banks over

Which I believe has been adequately shown to be untrue. 

Not really, the banks have been quiet about this, but when you think about it, why should people have to claim it back? Banks have records of who paid what, I believe they have a duty to just sort through and do the refunds, not wait for people to have to argue and fight for it. In that sense, if you can "screw a bank over" for a bit more because thay cant be bothered to check, which is often the case then go for it. The OP was saying that his first claim was denied. I know many cases where people have pursued and won. Its like even now the banks aren't acting honestly in this.

Sporky

midlifecrisis said:

the fact that its taxpayers money means they are not like other businesses. you are not ripping off a small business trying to provide for a family, or leaving someone destitute unable to feed themselves.

You are ripping off everyone if you make a claim to which you are not entitled. It's exactly the same as shoplifting - everyone else pays for what is stolen.

And - as you admitted - if a bank goes under, it's normal people who suffer.

You seem to know all of this but you can't put the pieces together?

fretmeister

midlifecrisis said:

Sporky said:

midlifecrisis said:

as i said, the banks will carry on doing what they do anyway, they will not go to the wall, they will get bailled out

With taxpayers money - so again, it's not the banks you're screwing over, it's everyone. I don't mind repeating that until you understand it.

midlifecrisis said:

you can never really "screw over the banks" in that sense

Starting to dawn on you?



no, thats my point from the beginning. the fact that its taxpayers money means they are not like other businesses. you are not ripping off a small business trying to provide for a family, or leaving someone destitute unable to feed themselves.

midlifecrisis said:

Once in a while people have an opportunity to get back some of what they put in and quite rightly they are entitled to take it.

Yes; those who were miss-sold PPI have the legal and moral right to reclaim it. That's not at question. But it's very different from what you actually said, which was:

midlifecrisis said:

Nothing immoral in screwing banks over

Which I believe has been adequately shown to be untrue. 

Not really, the banks have been quiet about this, but when you think about it, why should people have to claim it back? Banks have records of who paid what, I believe they have a duty to just sort through and do the refunds, not wait for people to have to argue and fight for it. In that sense, if you can "screw a bank over" for a bit more because thay cant be bothered to check, which is often the case then go for it. The OP was saying that his first claim was denied. I know many cases where people have pursued and won. Its like even now the banks aren't acting honestly in this.

Now you are ignoring the rules of litigation.

It is for the Claimant to prove the case, not for the defendant to disprove it.

midlifecrisis

Sporky said:

midlifecrisis said:

the fact that its taxpayers money means they are not like other businesses. you are not ripping off a small business trying to provide for a family, or leaving someone destitute unable to feed themselves.

You are ripping off everyone if you make a claim to which you are not entitled. It's exactly the same as shoplifting - everyone else pays for what is stolen.

And - as you admitted - if a bank goes under, it's normal people who suffer.

You seem to know all of this but you can't put the pieces together?

No the point is, banks have put the onus on customers to make the claims, I repeat, they should just automatically do the refunds, they have records. If they cant be arsed or its more cost effective for them to let people make claims that wont always be checked then thats their problem. I dont buy this its like shoplifting. If a shop decided to open and leave everything unattended for a week then complained stuff was gone I dont think many people would sympathize. Human nature is to get what it can especially if it feels it has been wronged and the banks are not trying to sort it out.  Remember, banks arnt doing it out of goodwill, they have been forced and they arnt making it too easy, hense all these companies offering to do it for you at 30%+.  who is accountable for it?

Sporky

midlifecrisis said:

I dont buy this its like shoplifting.

I'm sorry that the analogy was beyond you. I will try to put it more simply.

It is like shoplifting in that the cost of what is taken is shared amongst everyone else.

So when you talk of screwing the banks, you are talking of screwing everyone else.

Is that easier to follow?

The rest of your post seemed to be an attempt to veer off course; I am still dealing with your assertion that it's morally OK to screw over a bank, because you're struggling with understanding why it is not morally OK.

stickyfiddle

fretmeister said:

midlifecrisis said:

what t.he banks did wasn't illegal, we are told, and what people are doing is also not illegal

If a policy was NOT mis-sold then claiming money back is illegal - it's fraud.

Precisely this. I had about £30 of PPI on an insurance policy that I haven't claimed for because it's 50/50 whether it was mis-sold (I certainly knew what it was and that it was optional, but was probably coerced a little to tick the box), but it's not even worth my time to pursue it even if I wanted to. Morally I'm absolutely unconvinced claiming it would be ok.

I gotta be honest and say I'm tired of nearly a decade of "fuck the bankers" rhetoric. Obviously those who broke the law should be brought to justice, those who wrote crappy loophole-filled laws should be voted out. But no-one ever complains about those who took advantage of bargain-basement mortgages they couldn't really afford, blinkered to the fact that bubbles don't last forever...

Those running the banks (largely) did so within the law, and risk-taking was very similar across the board. That doesn't make it ok, but if they hadn't all been running the same practices they'd have gone out of business through being uncompetitive. The board has a duty to the shareholders not to let that happen.

midlifecrisis

Sporky said:

midlifecrisis said:

I dont buy this its like shoplifting.

I'm sorry that the analogy was beyond you. I will try to put it more simply.

It is like shoplifting in that the cost of what is taken is shared amongst everyone else.

So when you talk of screwing the banks, you are talking of screwing everyone else.

Is that easier to follow?

The rest of your post seemed to be an attempt to veer off course; I am still dealing with your assertion that it's morally OK to screw over a bank, because you're struggling with understanding why it is not morally OK.

as i said before, by that logic every business should behave exactly as it wants and exploit whenever it can because if it cant everyone else would have to share the cost.. maybe thats easier to follow?  As to talking about morals,a) they shouldnt have done it in the first place, they knew they were selling a useless product and b) they should have gone out of their way to recompense people, not wait for them to claim. c) why should people have to prove it. The banks have records of who they sold ppi to, no proof is needed.