|
Post by inquiete on Jun 13, 2020 13:44:38 GMT
After having my complaint dismissed by RS I have complained to the Ombudsman along these exact lines. I attached similar product/marketing literature with my complaint. Me thinks we were mis-sold.
|
|
|
Post by erniec on Jun 13, 2020 14:14:14 GMT
Sorry but no-one could foresee an event such as coronavirus and its financial implications. In my opinion, you do not have a reasonable complaint.
|
|
copacetic
Member of DD Central
Posts: 305
Likes: 666
|
Post by copacetic on Jun 13, 2020 15:06:50 GMT
You left out the big bolded part at the bottom of the email:
"Capital at risk. No FSCS protection. Past performance is not an indicator of future results. "
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 1,087
|
Post by ashtondav on Jun 14, 2020 8:22:59 GMT
You left out the big bolded part at the bottom of the email:
"Capital at risk. No FSCS protection. Past performance is not an indicator of future results. "
Yep, as always the dumb money forgot to read that far.
|
|
|
Post by erniec on Jun 14, 2020 11:22:27 GMT
Yep, as always the dumb money forgot to read that far. Who is dumb money? I also left out the big "£0 capital and interest lost" just below the FSCS statement as neither of them were the point of the post. .... which is still the case and RS are trying their best to continue.
|
|
spiral
Member of DD Central
Posts: 908
Likes: 455
|
Post by spiral on Jun 14, 2020 11:33:30 GMT
So if the new products increased liquidity then how come the 1 year and 5 year markets are more liquid and able to return investments faster? A person with 5K in each of the 5 products (Access, Plus, Max, 1Yr and 5yr) that wants to release £5K is most likely to sell out of a combination of
a) the product with the lowest charge. b) the product with the lowest rate. Access gets first place for both of those.
Equally a person that wishes to continue investing is more likely to continue investing in the product that provides the best risk/reward ratio. Arguably 1.5% (Offered by Access) is not enough above a FSCS covered scheme but some may consider 2.5-3.0 (which is available in 5yr) acceptable especially if the haircut only lasts until December. Whether it is or not is for an individual to decide but with 1yr and 5yr you also get the product you sign up for.
What I'm not sure if people understood at the start of the exit rush (I certainly didn't) was that each market operates in separate queues.
So we have a situation where more people want to sell out of Access but less want to invest and 5yr has the least numbers wanting to sell out with the highest numbers reinvesting.
Perversely, this creates a situation where those that opted for Access at the expense of lower rates/sell out costs are in a much bigger queue than those in the other 4 products and those prepared to tie in for 5 yrs have the shortest exit queue.
|
|
gg
Posts: 83
Likes: 61
|
Post by gg on Jun 14, 2020 12:38:45 GMT
So if the new products increased liquidity then how come the 1 year and 5 year markets are more liquid and able to return investments faster? A person with 5K in each of the 5 products (Access, Plus, Max, 1Yr and 5yr) that wants to release £5K is most likely to sell out of a combination of
a) the product with the lowest charge. b) the product with the lowest rate. Access gets first place for both of those.
Equally a person that wishes to continue investing is more likely to continue investing in the product that provides the best risk/reward ratio. Arguably 1.5% (Offered by Access) is not enough above a FSCS covered scheme but some may consider 2.5-3.0 (which is available in 5yr) acceptable especially if the haircut only lasts until December. Whether it is or not is for an individual to decide but with 1yr and 5yr you also get the product you sign up for.
What I'm not sure if people understood at the start of the exit rush (I certainly didn't) was that each market operates in separate queues.
So we have a situation where more people want to sell out of Access but less want to invest and 5yr has the least numbers wanting to sell out with the highest numbers reinvesting.
Perversely, this creates a situation where those that opted for Access at the expense of lower rates/sell out costs are in a much bigger queue than those in the other 4 products and those prepared to tie in for 5 yrs have the shortest exit queue.
I think this firmly hits the nail on the head. We all knew that there was no FSCS guarantee. We all should know not to invest that which we cannot afford to lose. Very few of us knew that we would want our money back in 2020 (and t the same time as almost everybody else). Since withdrawing nearly £100k (mainly due to the article in The Times in January) I am pleased to report that £65,500 worth of Premium Bonds returned £25 in May. Maybe June will be luckier - but I doubt because I’ve always loathed Premium Bonds. If and when more normal times return, I expect to reinvest £40k in RS. If you want someone to blame, look in the mirror. Good luck. gg
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jun 14, 2020 13:09:08 GMT
Not mis-sold, but mis-bought. And I did the same with AC. My mistake - and yours.
|
|
wapping35
Member of DD Central
Posts: 385
Likes: 210
|
Post by wapping35 on Jun 14, 2020 18:09:13 GMT
It will be interesting to see what the Regulator makes of this.
The reason I say this is looking at the PPI issue. PPI in most cases was sold to borrowers who if they had read the detailed small print of the product would have realised they could never make a successful claim.
In summary the regulator has been known to be pretty tough on excessive marketing which does not explain the downsides of the product adequately, the issue is does this meet that standard.
I write this as someone who my bank attempted to sell me PPI (in the early 2000's) and I pointed out I could not claim and so declined to buy it.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Jun 14, 2020 18:28:31 GMT
Not mis-sold, but mis-bought. And I did the same with AC. My mistake - and yours. According to the good book Matthew 20:16 "So the last shall be first, and the first last". So it came to pass, I, invested or mis-bought in the 5 star Trust Pilot recommended investment scheme (as per the front page of the RS WEBSITE), and paid or lost a premium amount of interest to be a part of the Access product. This of cousre with the obvious objective of being able to get my money back in a hurry. Other people purposefully invested their money long term in 5 year loans with significantly higher interest returns, with the condition of penalties for early withdrawal. Amazingly as things have turned out Im now holding dozens of loans some of as little value as £30 with 55 payments left to conclude them. The way the covid cookie has crumbled is such that my loans are now for 5 years, whereas the people who originally lent on five year are now cashing out early on the magic word liquidity. In my opinion, in the current uncertain times there should be no liquidity of individual products, all products and money should be in one pot and people paid out on the basis of the date they applied for their money to be returned, be it Access, One Year or Five year, you get it when its your turn irrespective of product. My biggest concern is not the liquidity of the individual products but the liquidity of the company, we are in extraordinary, bizarre times the small print of the contract I signed up to has now in my opinion become the subject of Force Majure and RS should be tailoring their payment returns, on this basis to suit application dates not particular products. I wonder what a Judge under Civil Law would make of RS's original contract terms and current events. And so in RS's book it really did come to pass that "the last were first and the first last". Amen
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 971
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Jun 14, 2020 18:35:27 GMT
Not mis-sold, but mis-bought. And I did the same with AC. My mistake - and yours. According to the good book Matthew 20:16 "So the last shall be first, and the first last". So it came to pass, I, invested or mis-bought in the 5 start Trust Pilot recommended investment scheme (as per the front page of the RS WEBSITE), and paid or lost a premium amount of interest to be a part of the Access product. Other people purposefully invested their money long term in 5 year loans with significantly higher interest returns. Amazingly as things have turned out Im now holding dozens of loans some of as much value as £30 with 55 payments left. The way the covid cookie has crumbled is such that my loans are now for 5 years, whereas the people who originally lent on five year are now cashing out early on the magic word liquidity, of the product they invested in. In my opinion, in the current uncertain times there should be no liquidity of individual products, all products and money should be in one pot and people paid out on the basis of the date they applied for their money to be returned be it Access, One Year or Five year, you get it when its your turn irrespective of product. My biggest concern is not the liquidity of the individual products but the future liquidity of the company, we are in extraordinary bizarre times the small print of the contrat I signed up to is now the subject of Force Majure and RS should be tailoring their payment returns to suit application dates not product particulars. I wonder what a Judge under Civil Law would make of RS's original contract terms and current events. And so in RS's book it really did come to pass that last were first and the first last. Amen The problem with your "one pot" idea is that it seems to be predicated on the notion that the money being used to meet these RYI requests is Ratesetter's own ... it isn't. It's other investors' money, investors who have chosen (albeit perhaps passively!) to reinvest their returns in one of the specific markets. And if I am investing in (say) the 5 year market then I expect to be getting loans from that market and not somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Jun 14, 2020 18:51:01 GMT
The problem with your "one pot" idea is that it seems to be predicated on the notion that the money being used to meet these RYI requests is Ratesetter's own ... it isn't. It's other investors' money, investors who have chosen (albeit perhaps passively!) to reinvest their returns in one of the specific markets. And if I am investing in (say) the 5 year market then I expect to be getting loans from that market and not somewhere else. Well that RateSetters problem not mine, I didn't choose to have a multitude of 50 plus month loans for as little as £30 per loan, it was the choice of the RS system to allocate them to me. I did not have a choice or the luxury to put £30 into a multitude of five year loans, which I will get a3% against your 6% return, these loans were dished out to me/us in the Access market I go back to what I said earlier the current situation could be deemed to be in Force Majeure, you can bet your bottom dollar a lot of commercial companies will be playing on it once the current crises is over. And if a Force Majuere could be claimed what would civil law make of the original contract terms, are they onerous on people in the Access market and the time they have to wait for their money to be returned. Im off now my beer goggles are misting up.
|
|
robski
Member of DD Central
Posts: 772
Likes: 462
|
Post by robski on Jun 15, 2020 8:07:37 GMT
I have little sympathy for those complaining about the product they selected personally.
I do wonder however if RS could switch loans from one market to another, like the poster above I don't agree with pooling funds.
Those withdrawing are effectively stating a run on RS like those who did on N Rock.
Going back to my switching funds thought, once the queues for 1 yea and 5 year are done, maybe loans that match them could be switched out of access (plus and max) back into 5 year and 1 year as applicable which would help with liquidity in the access market (++) and could be met by funds from the others.
|
|
|
Post by honda2ner on Jun 15, 2020 14:43:53 GMT
The problem with your "one pot" idea is that it seems to be predicated on the notion that the money being used to meet these RYI requests is Ratesetter's own ... it isn't. It's other investors' money, investors who have chosen (albeit perhaps passively!) to reinvest their returns in one of the specific markets. And if I am investing in (say) the 5 year market then I expect to be getting loans from that market and not somewhere else. A 5 year loan in the access market and 5 year market are identical bar the amount of money the investor / rs make They are in terms of how the accounts work, but from a lenders perspective they are completely different creatures. I looked at the new Access Accounts when they were introduced and thought they were utter garbage, didn't invest a penny as the risk/reward ratio for a 5 year loan that paid interest as if it was a monthly loan was laughable. I stayed put in the 5 year account. If all the accounts were pooled then I would be penalised despite recognising the weaknesses in the new RS model which isn't fair. Whilst I sympathise with people stuck in Access which is paying out pennies it is right that the people being penalised are those that made the mistake of investing in them. At the end of the day people do have to take some responsibility for their own actions, I agree that RS advertising was absurdly optimistic but it's only half of the story as a little digging showed what a stinking turd the new Access Accounts really were. This isn't PPI, there were no pressure sales or commission, quite the opposite with warnings about liquidity and losses instead, perhaps people just got too familiar with the warnings and let their guard down. IMO RS was very optimistic in their advertising but am struggling to see that they deliberately misled investors (I'm no fan of RS, there are better investments out there so supporting them is quite difficult for me).
|
|
|
Post by scepticalinvestor on Jun 15, 2020 15:51:23 GMT
After having my complaint dismissed by RS I have complained to the Ombudsman along these exact lines. I attached similar product/marketing literature with my complaint. Me thinks we were mis-sold.
@freddie123 thanks for sharing the initial Access promotiona emails. I have now submitted formal complaints in mine and partner's names to RS, along similar lines focusing on RS' TCF obligations with regard to Access accounts. I will wait for RS' final response or 8 weeks and then escalate to the FOS.
|
|