Canadian Money Forum banner

81 - 100 of 116 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,668 Posts
I would not of minded if the banksters told me that I was only allowed half the insurance.
That would of been Okay with me.
... there is no hell in the world the bank would give you only half the insurance (not even a nickel) when their policy specifically says coverage terminates at age 70.

Half or no half is not the issue with me.
The banksters should not of even talked about insurance with me when I was 69 and the policy was invalid at 70.
... agree with first statement. as with your 2nd statement, whose fault is that? According to LTA, that's your fault that you don't understand loan insurance or didn't bother to read insurance contract (which you would have unlikely to have on hand and yet the bankster did.)

They could of given me the loan without insurance.
It is not as though the law said they had to insure the loan.
.. in hindsight now. In actuality depending on the size of the loan and the so-called "loan officer or banking rep", they may pressure you in getting insurance. The bank ain't gonna to take unnecessary risks. They want their loans to be "secured" in some form.

If the banksters had not suggested it to me, I probably would not of even thought about it.
It was an act of over-sell.
.. maybe an innocent act of "over-selling" but regardless who's doing the selling here? Ain't you.

Based on LTA's high moral grounds, he seems to suggest you (but the bankster didn't, funny enough) KNEW the policy was gonna to terminate at age 70 and yet went ahead and purchased it (under duress as you were desperate in getting the loan), signing the dotted line and when the unforunate times came that your brother died, it was discovered by "you" (again, funny not the bank) you had no insurance.

So according to LTA, it's your fault the bank was asleep (being polite here). It's NOT the bank's job to 1. check your age, 2. read and know their own damned insurance terms, and 3. doing nothing when an error is made even the customer admits it was his fault. According to LTA, the responsibility is ALL YOURS. You should have worked for the bank.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
I already said that I accept all responsibility for not calling in my forensic team when the insurance was suggested to me.
I am not now asking for the bank to pay for my mistake. I am not asking for anything.
I am saying that when at the RBC bank and getting a loan, don't trust the banksters.
Remember the RBC advertising campaign? ''''' We're Approachable """" ?
Well, they certainly saw that I was more than approachable and took advantage of my ignorance and knew I was not about to call in my forensic team.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,668 Posts
^ You don't even have to go to the extent of getting a loan to get screwed ... a move by the bank itself and claiming that *they (gasp!) * don't have your enrolment card for the joint account so "you" need to "prove it to them it's joint" plus internal thievery (yes, aka "stealing" your $$$) and then keeping it hush hush BY MANAGEMENT plus more. ... do I need to go on?

More appropriate to change their marketing sh1t to "We're Laughable".... held to the HIGHEST standards. (n)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,307 Posts
... no need to spin it. You still haven't answered the question: what is the bankster job in this case when the error was discovered?
Where did you read that any ERROR was discovered? We don't know if there was any error at all Beaver101. All we have is an opinion from calm that there was, without any evidence to show that there was. Read his comments again, he cannot tell us if he paid premiums for more than 1 year or not, by his own admission.

IF an error is discovered then obviously it should be corrected. But ASSUMING there was an error and then accusing the bank of not correcting it is pointless. Show the evidence of an error. Calm has not done so and admits he cannot do so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,307 Posts
When people start using words like 'forensic team' and 'stealing your $$$' they have passed beyond any kind of rational argument and are simply spouting extremes because they cannot logically argue/debate an issue. Extremes are always evidence of that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,668 Posts
When people start using words like 'forensic team' and 'stealing your $$$' they have passed beyond any kind of rational argument and are simply spouting extremes because they cannot logically argue/debate an issue. Extremes are always evidence of that.
... no need to debate or "argue with you logically" with you when a lawyer was hired to retrieve the stolen money by the bank.

Consider yourself lucky that you didn't have this experience ... as you wear rosy-glasses in a perfect world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,668 Posts
Where did you read that any ERROR was discovered? We don't know if there was any error at all Beaver101. All we have is an opinion from calm that there was, without any evidence to show that there was. Read his comments again, he cannot tell us if he paid premiums for more than 1 year or not, by his own admission.

IF an error is discovered then obviously it should be corrected. But ASSUMING there was an error and then accusing the bank of not correcting it is pointless. Show the evidence of an error. Calm has not done so and admits he cannot do so.
.. no error if you say so. I can't help it if you can't decipher or interpret your readings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,307 Posts
.. no error if you say so. I can't help it if you can't decipher or interpret your readings.
SHOW me a quote from this thread Beaver101 where you see EVIDENCE of an error. Learn to read. Calm cannot and has not told us if he paid for more than 1 year or not. Ask calm for evidence and then YOU can decipher or interpret HIS words.

It's not 'no error if I say so', it's no EVIDENCE there was or was not an error because calm has not said so, he has only IMPLIED there was and you apparently find that good enough to base an accusation on. I will willingly accuse the bank of wrongdoing IF I am shown evidence of it having happened. But so far, calm has presented no such evidence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,307 Posts
... no need to debate or "argue with you logically" with you when a lawyer was hired to retrieve the stolen money by the bank.

Consider yourself lucky that you didn't have this experience ... as you wear rosy-glasses in a perfect world.
I don't know what 'stolen money' you are referring to or where a lawyer was hired to retrieve it. That certainly is not part of calm's story of the loan insurance. Are you referring to some other story? If so, you can't use it to say there is no need to debate what I am saying about calm's loan insurance story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,260 Posts
Next time read the damm policy, ask some questions. Apply some basic common sense. That includes going back to the bank when you have an issue.

Your issue is that you were not bothered enough to go back to the bank and have your issue addressed but you are apparently bothered enough to attempt to solicit sympathy for your own actions...or lack thereof.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
Next time read the damm policy, ask some questions. Apply some basic common sense. That includes going back to the bank when you have an issue.

Your issue is that you were not bothered enough to go back to the bank and have your issue addressed but you are apparently bothered enough to attempt to solicit sympathy for your own actions...or lack thereof.
......
I totally agree. Totally.
That is exactly my fault. And I am too lazy.

My complaint was that an Economic Terrorist "Sold" me a 5 year policy which the Bankster Knew well that it was going to expire in less than a year.

I walked away. Because I am just too damn lazy. At nearly 73 years of age, I got better things to do.
I don't want to "Invest In" a forensic crew and room full of lawyers. I got better things to do with my money.

The "Original Sin" is what I am pissed off about.

It is as though I purchased a bottle of wine and it was less than half full ...... and it left a bitter taste in my mouth.

But too bad ..... I drank the wine anyways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,260 Posts
Economic terrorist. Really? Perhaps it was as simple as a poorly trained employee who was not aware of the product attributes. Anyone can make a mistake...even a bank employee.

The only original sin is your failure to bring it to the bank's attention. And rectify it so that their employees do not make the same mistake in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,307 Posts
Economic terrorist. Really? Perhaps it was as simple as a poorly trained employee who was not aware of the product attributes. Anyone can make a mistake...even a bank employee.

The only original sin is your failure to bring it to the bank's attention. And rectify it so that their employees do not make the same mistake in the future.
LOL, don't expect calm to not try to blame someone else for his mistakes ian.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
Economic terrorist. Really? Perhaps it was as simple as a poorly trained employee who was not aware of the product attributes. Anyone can make a mistake...even a bank employee.

The only original sin is your failure to bring it to the bank's attention. And rectify it so that their employees do not make the same mistake in the future.
The Bankster was a "Domestic Economic Terrorist" and he was very practiced at it.
And I am not in the "Forgiving" mood.

There are just too many instances of fraud and over-sell and where these Banksters blame it on improper training.

In 2008 Financial Collapse was because of 600 trillion in derivatives which the U.S. government guaranteed.

Derivatives are financial instruments and which are the weapons used ..... An act of Economic Terrorism.

And again today these Economic Terrorists demand yet another bailout and hold the complete world hostage with threats of a "Ransom" ..... a bailout.

"Improper Training" is like Global Warming ..... it kind of sneaks up on yuh!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
......
I totally agree. Totally.
That is exactly my fault. And I am too lazy.

My complaint was that an Economic Terrorist "Sold" me a 5 year policy which the Bankster Knew well that it was going to expire in less than a year.

I walked away. Because I am just too damn lazy. At nearly 73 years of age, I got better things to do.
I don't want to "Invest In" a forensic crew and room full of lawyers. I got better things to do with my money.

The "Original Sin" is what I am pissed off about.

It is as though I purchased a bottle of wine and it was less than half full ...... and it left a bitter taste in my mouth.

But too bad ..... I drank the wine anyways.
The Original Sin is that you were too lazy to bring up anything, yet complain. With out being there or having the facts (we only have your interpretation). Calling them Terrorist just shows that you are only looking at one which does nothing for you.

I agree, they should not have sold a 5 year policy to an 69 yr old. What could have happened?
They could :
  • be a terrorist with malicious intent trying to milk your few dollars
  • been someone inexperienced
  • have woken up and the next 69 year old person who is desperate for a loan I will force with my jedi mind tricks to buy the insurance
  • have made an error.
I could go on forever and make up a story on why the person sold you insurance. None of it can be proven. Just as you could have read policy, asked questions, contacted them.

So where does this? Really, no where. You made the choice to be lazy, so suck it up and live with that are as much to blame as them. Based on your posts, that's alot of blame too.

As a side note, most customers on are lost or retained after a failure/error. People will decide if they will return to a place based on how well a place handles a complaint. In your case, you didn't even bother offering to give them a chance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
......
I totally agree. Totally.
That is exactly my fault. And I am too lazy.

My complaint was that an Economic Terrorist "Sold" me a 5 year policy which the Bankster Knew well that it was going to expire in less than a year.

I walked away. Because I am just too damn lazy. At nearly 73 years of age, I got better things to do.
I don't want to "Invest In" a forensic crew and room full of lawyers. I got better things to do with my money.

The "Original Sin" is what I am pissed off about.

It is as though I purchased a bottle of wine and it was less than half full ...... and it left a bitter taste in my mouth.

But too bad ..... I drank the wine anyways.
im still of the opinion that it was not a 5 year policy and that premiums ended when the policy ended at age 70
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
im still of the opinion that it was not a 5 year policy and that premiums ended when the policy ended at age 70
I applied for a 10 thousand dollar loan.
I was to pay a set amount over the 5 year period.
The cost of the policy was carried over the 5 years or I would of been told that my payments were reduced because the policy had expired and not to continue paying that particular insurance cost.
The insurance policy costs were calculated into the loan "Basket".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
It seems from reading the certificate that yes they combine principal, interest and insurance into one payment and that the amount charged to each portion changes over time. So it’s certainly possible that when the policy expired, the portion previously directed to insurance would be applied to the principal. You should ask for a loan history showing you how each payment was directed.

It’s possible that the premiums continued to be charged, but I would find it be very rare. It just doesn’t make sense. I don’t RBC would conit use to purposely collect premiums on an expired policy. The sales rep would no control over the premiums being collected. As for ethics, a branch employee would have very little incentive to sell insurance on a $10,000 loan. They are salaried with some bonuses availability. the Average personal banker takes home bonuses of well below $5000 a year. When I was Working at TD, insurance on unsecured credit did not count towards bonuses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,668 Posts
I don't know what 'stolen money' you are referring to or where a lawyer was hired to retrieve it. That certainly is not part of calm's story of the loan insurance. Are you referring to some other story? If so, you can't use it to say there is no need to debate what I am saying about calm's loan insurance story.
... now you claim you don't know what stolen money I'm referring to and it's not part of the insurance loan. And yet your post #85 intercepted my response post #82 to calm's #83 with your comment (copy and paste for ya here).

When people start using words like 'forensic team' and 'stealing your $$$' they have passed beyond any kind of rational argument and are simply spouting extremes because they cannot logically argue/debate an issue. Extremes are always evidence of that.
If you re-read my response #82 to calm, it's obvious I'm NOT referring to his loan story ... in fact I just listed 2 of "my" bank stories .. and added: do I need to on? Of course, you conveniently missed this ... and go twisting it all around. Typical salesman tactics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,668 Posts
Economic terrorist. Really? Perhaps it was as simple as a poorly trained employee who was not aware of the product attributes. Anyone can make a mistake...even a bank employee.

The only original sin is your failure to bring it to the bank's attention. And rectify it so that their employees do not make the same mistake in the future.
... not according to LTA. What mistake=error was made? The banks can't make mistakes!!!!
 
81 - 100 of 116 Posts
Top