Canadian Money Forum banner

101 - 116 of 116 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,659 Posts
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.
... that's why he's complaining here. And he has stated he would never step foot in RBC. But there're those biased bodies here /bashing his head just encouraging that by saying it's his own damn fault (which he did admit) as the bank is NEVER WRONG. They do their job perfectly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,659 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.
... it's very simple. Has he been paying the same scheduled loan amounts per month over the term of the 5 years? If yes, then the insurance charge would have remained. [Ethics set aside]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,659 Posts
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".
... the devil in the details. Did RBC provided him with a breakdown of his loan "costs"? Principal, interest and insurance charges. Or did they just mumbled-jumbled in everything and called it a day?

Oops, that was you calm. Sorry thought it was ian. So your payments per month were the same throughout the 5 year period, correct? And you were signed up for the insurance, correct?

So to the banking expert here, Money17###, please tell me was he insured (presumably) or not?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,022 Posts
... that's why he's complaining here. And he has stated he would never step foot in RBC. But there're those biased bodies here /bashing his head just encouraging that by saying it's his own damn fault (which he did admit) as the bank is NEVER WRONG. They do their job perfectly.

Though I totally understand how some here are very condescending and off putting, I can see where they are coming from too.

I think both the bank and calm are at fault. Bank for selling a policy to a 69 yr old that can't be used. OP's fault for not asking any questions, admitting to not reading the policy or taking any time to understand it, and then not calling the bank to let them know of the error. The OP then makes a lot of assumptions about the banker and inflammatory claims. These types of biased complaints make it difficult for any empathy.

The real facts are
  • Fact: Banker sold useless insurance policy to OP - definitely an error. Was it malicious intent, economic terrorism? Can't say, those are all opinions and judgement. No facts were presented here. We can all guess and bring our views, but will never know because the other side hasn't been given a chance to explain, which is a fact
  • Fact: OP didn't read the policy, didn't ask questions, or check anything. This is a fact.
  • Opinion: OP says that he was forced. I didn't realize that bankers were allowed to hold guns to people heads or blackmail them. I do understand pressure, but again, it's blurry on the facts. I have to say in any loan I have taken for any of my mortgages, I have NEVER been required to take out insurance. It has been recommended every time, and every time, I tell them why I don't need it. So no facts here either.
  • Fact - OP didn't go to the bank when he found the error.
It's his right to be pissed and annoyed and not go back. He just played victim. If it bothered him so much, he could have contacted the bank and given them the opportunity. Instead he has come to here to tell his one side story. If one looks at the actually facts presented here, he is as much to blame as the bank, now that I read it, maybe even more.

I think some are telling him to stop his complaining when he had a part in it, and learn from it in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
877 Posts
It seems a unique way of doing it, but from the certificate of insurance provided, it appears that while the total loan payment amount (Ie. principal, interest, Insurance) is fixed, the proportion applied to each component changes every month. So theoretically, and I suspect what happens is....ex. Monthly payment is $203. First month, there is $3.00 for insurance, principal is $130, interest is $70. Next month, the insurance is $2.70, principal is $131, interest is $69.30. Insurance At RBC is on a declining balance. If, as I believe it should occur, when the insurance policy ends, the payment may be something like $160 principal and $43 insurance. So the payment remains fixed throughout, but the insurance portion should have ended at age 70.

a detailed loan history would clear this up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
877 Posts
Though I totally understand how some here are very condescending and off putting, I can see where they are coming from too.

I think both the bank and calm are at fault. Bank for selling a policy to a 69 yr old that can't be used. OP's fault for not asking any questions, admitting to not reading the policy or taking any time to understand it, and then not calling the bank to let them know of the error. The OP then makes a lot of assumptions about the banker and inflammatory claims. These types of biased complaints make it difficult for any empathy.

The real facts are
  • Fact: Banker sold useless insurance policy to OP - definitely an error. Was it malicious intent, economic terrorism? Can't say, those are all opinions and judgement. No facts were presented here. We can all guess and bring our views, but will never know because the other side hasn't been given a chance to explain, which is a fact
  • Fact: OP didn't read the policy, didn't ask questions, or check anything. This is a fact.
  • Opinion: OP says that he was forced. I didn't realize that bankers were allowed to hold guns to people heads or blackmail them. I do understand pressure, but again, it's blurry on the facts. I have to say in any loan I have taken for any of my mortgages, I have NEVER been required to take out insurance. It has been recommended every time, and every time, I tell them why I don't need it. So no facts here either.
  • Fact - OP didn't go to the bank when he found the error.
It's his right to be pissed and annoyed and not go back. He just played victim. If it bothered him so much, he could have contacted the bank and given them the opportunity. Instead he has come to here to tell his one side story. If one looks at the actually facts presented here, he is as much to blame as the bank, now that I read it, maybe even more.

I think some are telling him to stop his complaining when he had a part in it, and learn from it in the future.
I agree with most of what is said, but we can’t say definitely it is a useless policy for a 69 year old. It’s likely he bought and paid for a 1 year policy. The fact is that a valid policy existed from 69-70, and although it had very Little potential economic benefit, it did have some value for a year .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
877 Posts
....and I’ll add that my family has fallen for similar situations. My wife bought a new Honda and was sold “window etching” and wheel lock nuts on “standard steel wheels”. As soon as I saw the contract, we called the dealer back and demanded both charges be withdrawn. I specifically sent her with guidance to buy a certain model with a price ceiling and no other upgrades or options. we Mentioned the words “tied selling” and the costs were immediately withdrawn. They claimed that these “options” came with every vehicle.

lack of ethics yes, and I presume this advisor saw a “mark” and got calm to sign ”just one more document”. When customers are in a rush, uninformed, this things happen all the time. The one I see the most is in restaurants, where you‘re asked “do you want mushroom sauce on your steak”.....or do you want ”xyz” side with that. It’s always low-cost items but they usually appear on your bill for an extra $1-5.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
877 Posts
... the devil in the details. Did RBC provided him with a breakdown of his loan "costs"? Principal, interest and insurance charges. Or did they just mumbled-jumbled in everything and called it a day?

Oops, that was you calm. Sorry thought it was ian. So your payments per month were the same throughout the 5 year period, correct? And you were signed up for the insurance, correct?

So to the banking expert here, Money17###, please tell me was he insured (presumably) or not?
Providing detailed costs is a legal requirement under cost of borrowing legislation,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,022 Posts
I agree with most of what is said, but we can’t say definitely it is a useless policy for a 69 year old. It’s likely he bought and paid for a 1 year policy. The fact is that a valid policy existed from 69-70, and although it had very Little potential economic benefit, it did have some value for a year .
This is the problem with this post. OP whas said he doesn’t know, and is too lazy to look up, so we will never have the real facts other than the ones I presented. It could be that everything you said is right, it could be that the banker is right, it could be so many things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,284 Posts
Anyone can make a mistake including a bank employee but before you jump on who made a mistake, FIRST you have to have some evidence a mistake was made. Calm has offered no evidence that a mistake was made. He just THINKS they kept charging him for insurance but is too lazy to actually find out if that did happen or not. What is it about that that some here can't get?

Calm has never even asked if he paid for insurance beyond their 70th birthday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,284 Posts
... the devil in the details. Did RBC provided him with a breakdown of his loan "costs"? Principal, interest and insurance charges. Or did they just mumbled-jumbled in everything and called it a day?

Oops, that was you calm. Sorry thought it was ian. So your payments per month were the same throughout the 5 year period, correct? And you were signed up for the insurance, correct?

So to the banking expert here, Money17###, please tell me was he insured (presumably) or not?
Ask calm for the details Beaver101. That is the whole point, he can't give them to us since he never 'bothered' to ask for them, before or after he got the loan.

There is no 'presumably' here, there is only what actually happened or did not happen and no one here including calm actually knows the answer to that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,659 Posts
Ask calm for the details Beaver101. That is the whole point, he can't give them to us since he never 'bothered' to ask for them, before or after he got the loan.

There is no 'presumably' here, there is only what actually happened or did not happen and no one here including calm actually knows the answer to that.
... what further "details" are you expecting him to give you? . Exact loan amount, date, banking officer's name ... ?

Why don't you state the "details" you deem as proof needed that you seem to be eluding. You've every right to not believe his story or your version of how the bank don't make no mistakes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: calm

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,753 Posts
Since the banks continue to sell useless insurance policies, I would think they know what they are doing and it wasn't a one off "mistake".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,245 Posts
Loan insurance may not be useless to someone under 70.

’They is a person and people make mistakes... new hires, poorly trained on the product offerings. I am hardly a fan of the banks but on the few occasions when we have had an issue it has been resolved.

Just a regular people issue that all businesses face from time to time. They are not mind readers though.....you do have to actually bring those issues to them for resolution if you reasonabl expect satisfaction.
 
101 - 116 of 116 Posts
Top