# RBC New Policies



## Dreamer (Jul 27, 2020)

Do you know that you cannot make an anonymous complaint to RBC?
Do you know that RBC is forcing clients to sign a new agreement by holding online paid (VIP) baking services, hostage - until signed.
Do you think that the cost of online services would be withdrawn till the issue is resolved?
Do you think that the changes should be outlined instead of having to read thru the entire 34 page agreement in legalese?
Do you think the public should just roll over and blindly accept new edicts issued by banks in order to continue using their services? Is it better to use other banks that do not have a high and mighty attitude?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

No one 'forces' you to use a bank's services. If you don't like their terms, go elsewhere. Anything else you wanted to discuss now that this subject is covered?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Dreamer said:


> Do you know that you cannot make an anonymous complaint to RBC?
> Do you know that RBC is forcing clients to sign a new agreement by holding online paid (VIP) baking services, hostage - until signed.
> Do you think that the cost of online services would be withdrawn till the issue is resolved?
> Do you think that the changes should be outlined instead of having to read thru the entire 34 page agreement in legalese?
> Do you think the public should just roll over and blindly accept new edicts issued by banks in order to continue using their services? Is it better to use other banks that do not have a high and mighty attitude?


1. Don't care
2. If you want to pay a company for a service, you should have a mutually agreed service contract. It is a good idea not to provide services without a contract.
3. What issue?
4. Why? Are you suggesting that you wouldn't read the contract ?
5. I think that if the terms of service are contrary to the legislated requirements for mandated banking services, there would be an issue. If it is additional features, it's up to the client and service organization to negotiate.


----------



## Dreamer (Jul 27, 2020)

Longtimeago said:


> No one 'forces' you to use a bank's services. If you don't like their terms, go elsewhere. Anything else you wanted to discuss now that this subject is covered?


Difficult to move on after 50 years but I agree - moving in that direction.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

So what? If you do not like RBC's policies you can choose from a wide variety of other bank and near bank financial institutions. We moved away from the bank that we dealt with for 30 plus years. Our only regret is that we should have done if a few years earlier. Difficult? Not really, just like shopping for any other product or service.

Besides, we go into our local bank branch twice a year at the most. It is all on line.

I actually have no issue with the not considering 'anonymous' complaints.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

My RBC story ....

In 2017 my identical twin brother and I got a 10 thousand dollar loan and we got life insurance on the loan. When my twin died, I tried to collect on the policy. I was told that the insurance expired when my brother and I turned 70. RBC sold me the insurance for the 5 year loan when I was 69.
Why would they sell me a policy which would not apply after one year which covered a 5 year loan?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

calm said:


> My RBC story ....
> 
> In 2017 my identical twin brother and I got a 10 thousand dollar loan and we got life insurance on the loan. When my twin died, I tried to collect on the policy. I was told that the insurance expired when my brother and I turned 70. RBC sold me the insurance for the 5 year loan when I was 69.
> Why would they sell me a policy which would not apply after one year which covered a 5 year loan?


Banking ombudsman or small claims court.
Why would you stick with them after that?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

calm said:


> My RBC story ....
> 
> In 2017 my identical twin brother and I got a 10 thousand dollar loan and we got life insurance on the loan. When my twin died, I tried to collect on the policy. I was told that the insurance expired when my brother and I turned 70. RBC sold me the insurance for the 5 year loan when I was 69.
> Why would they sell me a policy which would not apply after one year which covered a 5 year loan?


Obviously, you did not read the policy. I do think they should have pointed that out given you were 69 at the time but in the end, it is your responsibility to know what you are agreeing to before buying insurance of any kind.

Hopefully, a lesson learned. ALWAYS read the fine print and know what you are agreeing to.


----------



## Dreamer (Jul 27, 2020)

calm said:


> My RBC story ....
> 
> In 2017 my identical twin brother and I got a 10 thousand dollar loan and we got life insurance on the loan. When my twin died, I tried to collect on the policy. I was told that the insurance expired when my brother and I turned 70. RBC sold me the insurance for the 5 year loan when I was 69.
> Why would they sell me a policy which would not apply after one year which covered a 5 year loan?


According to BLOOMBERG, RBC posted a profit of 12.9 Billion at the end of 2019. Need I say more!


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Dreamer said:


> According to BLOOMBERG, RBC posted a profit of 12.9 Billion at the end of 2019. Need I say more!


Yes you do.
Why is that interesting?
Is it because RBC only made a profit of $12,871 million?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> Obviously, you did not read the policy. I do think they should have pointed that out given you were 69 at the time but in the end, it is your responsibility to know what you are agreeing to before buying insurance of any kind.
> 
> Hopefully, a lesson learned. ALWAYS read the fine print and know what you are agreeing to.


 ... however the insurance was not sold in good faith by the "banking rep". 

You should at least request your premiums back when the policy got "expired when you turned 70" or go to small claims court if the banking ombudsman turns deaf & blind to your complaint.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> Hopefully, a lesson learned. ALWAYS read the fine print and know what you are agreeing to.


4. Do you think that the changes should be outlined instead of having to read thru the entire 34 page agreement in legalese?

I think they started the thread by saying they didn't learn the lesson.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Dreamer said:


> According to BLOOMBERG, RBC posted a profit of 12.9 Billion at the end of 2019. Need I say more!


Beautiful. I love profitable Canadian companies. 
Imagine an American saying that about Apple or Amazon.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> Beautiful. I love profitable Canadian companies.
> Imagine an American saying that about Apple or Amazon.


 ...yep, greed will never go out of style for some people unlike morals.

As for the Americans, 90% have gone practicing Gordon Gecko's beliefs ... not going with the herd now, right?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ...yep, greed will never go out of style for some people unlike morals.
> 
> As for the Americans, 90% have gone practicing Gordon Gecko's beliefs ... not going with the herd now, right?


What Greed? 

They're providing such a valuable service to customers that they're rewarding RBC with over a billion dollars a month in profits!

Sounds like everyone is being quite generous.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> What Greed?


 ... you tell me. 



> They're providing such a valuable service to customers that they're rewarding RBC with over a billion dollars a month in profits!


 ... valuable? pffft.



> Sounds like everyone is being quite generous.


 ... you're funny.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> 4. Do you think that the changes should be outlined instead of having to read thru the entire 34 page agreement in legalese?
> 
> I think they started the thread by saying they didn't learn the lesson.


Changes? What changes? Calm said nothing about any changes being made to the insurance policy. Are you suggesting they previously did not limit the coverage to age 70? 

In any case, yes, I expect anyone who buys insurance of any kind to read the policy in FULL before buying it. I never have any sympathy for someone who says, 'I thought I was insured for something and now they tell me I was not.' INVARIABLY, they never were to begin with but simply didn't realize it because they did not READ their policy.

It is simply not possible for someone selling you insurance to tell you in person every single thing you are and are not covered for. Do get even close to doing that, they would have to READ the entire policy to you and ask after each sentence, 'do you understand'. Think about it.

When you buy a car do you expect the salesperson to tell you, 'oh and by the way, if you do not maintain the oil level, you will seize the engine and that is not covered by the warranty.'? Or when you are pregnant, decide to travel and buy medical coverage, do you expect the online coverage you buy to somehow tell you, 'oh and by the way, if you give birth while on your travels, we cover you for that but we do NOT cover any care for the child. YOU are who the policy covers, not an unborn child for whom no policy has been bought.' That in fact is a fairly common travel medical insurance surprise some people get as an example.

There is simply no way other than to READ your policy that anyone should EXPECT to know what is covered or not covered. The RESPONSIBILITY as always rests on the buyer.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Less about greed to me. More about having strong Canadian companies that employ tens of thousands in Canada. 2 of my best friends lost jobs this year before covid. One was purchased by an American firm and his job was replaced by someone (who he is now training) from South Carolina. The other worked for a global company who decreased their Canadian footprint.

nothing morally wrong with making money and providing jobs in my view. we can debate the merits of Canadian banking (and their greed), but I’d rather focus on Canadian companies in general. 

i think a debate of why we hate banks and cell phone companies vs. Why we don’t hate on other large successful companies would be worthwhile (and fun). Is it because we believe some services are a right and basic necessity?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

What is wrong with posting a healthy profits? No shame in that. Bank stocks have always been good to us.

Perhaps the real problem is apathetic and lazy Canadian banking customers who seem to accept retail bank changes and terms like a baby accepts pablum. We have never put banks on an pedestal and we have always negotiated with them on rates and terms. Sure, the first response by them is always a no with some push back and feigned indignation.  Get past that and you would be surprised how flexible some bank decision makers can be.

I mean really, when you go into a new car showroom do you believe everything that the salesperson tells you and do tend to verify it independently? The counter person/salesperson at the bank is no different. Most likely part of their compensation is quota bases-commission or bonus. Certainly their job performance review is. Understand how someone is paid and you will understand their behavior.

A month ago the bank called and asked me to put some money into their internet saving account. They told me the rate was something like 2 percent. So, I asked the next question...how long do I get that 2 percent. The answer was for three months, then it want back to near zero. Sometimes you simply have to ask some additional questions. Trust but verify.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

Canadian Banks enjoy an incestuous relationship .....

The Barclays Octopus – Who Controls The Big Money In The USA Before The Crash In 2007?
By Matthias Chang
October 10, 2010
Image:


https://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/barclays2.bmp


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> Changes? What changes? Calm said nothing about any changes being made to the insurance policy. Are you suggesting they previously did not limit the coverage to age 70?
> 
> 
> There is simply no way other than to READ your policy that anyone should EXPECT to know what is covered or not covered. The RESPONSIBILITY as always rests on the buyer.


I'm pointing out that the OP, in the opening post, implied a desire not to read the contract.
Then told a story about losing money, due to not reading the contract.

they clearly haven't learned their lesson. Update, just realized it is 2 different people.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

That is why we place our HISA in an on line bank than is not part of the big 6. And why we have an FX credit card from a trust company. And two day to day credit cards that are not issued by a Canadian retail bank. We are willing to take the time to shop in order to find the best product for our needs...not necessarily the most convenient one offered by our bank.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> MrMatt said:
> 
> 
> > What Greed?
> ...


You're the one claiming greed, but apparently unable to explain where it is.

The reality is that millions of people are CHOOSING to give this company billions of dollars.
They're clearly getting something they think is worth paying for.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> ... however the insurance was not sold in good faith by the "banking rep".
> 
> You should at least request your premiums back when the policy got "expired when you turned 70" or go to small claims court if the banking ombudsman turns deaf & blind to your complaint.


I never argued. I was too busy dealing with the estate. I think the balance remaining on the loan was 3 thousand. I just paid it and whispered silently that I will never talk to RBC again in my lifetime.
I took the hit for peace of mind.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I am far from being a defender of large corporations. But I do not think that dealing with a large corporation absolves a consumer from doing some very basic due dilligence.

And if you feel that you are wronged then follow it up with the company. It is hardly fair to criticize the firm if you have not given them an opportunity to address your issue. They are not mind readers. It could be that you were dealing with an new employee who was not trained properly. Perhaps by bringing the issue to the banks attention you might stop the same happening to another luckless customer.

In my business life many of my customers evaluated me and my employer by how well and how quickly we responded to a customer issue, situation, problem whatever.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

ian said:


> I am far from being a defender of large corporations. But I do not think that dealing with a large corporation absolves a consumer from doing some very basic due dilligence.


Yes .... I made a mistake. I should of called a lawyer to review the contract and spent hours squinting my eyelids in boredom.
I trusted the bank not to give me counterfeit money. I did not check every dollar bill when I picked up the cash and hire a forensic expert.
I trusted the bank not to sink me down with a policy which was near worthless.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Years ago I had a similar issue with our CIBC mortgage. The first go round we had insurance. We paid the mortgage down three times, 40K or so. The insurance charge was not adjusted.

Rather than cry and moan in my beer about it I picked up the phone and called. Someone called me back, said it was a bug in the system that they did not know about. They credited me with the overpayment and fixed the system bug. 

Not really such a big issue was it? Resolved to my satisfaction with a phone call to their mortgage dept. Not saying it always works this way but one can hardly complain if one has not tried even once to get the issue resolved.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

calm said:


> Yes .... I made a mistake. I should of called a lawyer to review the contract and spent hours squinting my eyelids in boredom.
> I trusted the bank not to give me counterfeit money. I did not check every dollar bill when I picked up the cash and hire a forensic expert.
> I trusted the bank not to sink me down with a policy which was near worthless.


Do you say the same thing when you buy auto, home or travel insurance calm? When does something become your responsibility?

It is not that hard to read any insurance policy. But what I see in many forums is always the same. Someone THOUGHT they were insured for something when in fact they were not. Then they complain that they should have been told they were not insured. It is never THEIR own fault in their view, it is ALWAYS someone else's fault.

You didn't need to call a lawyer and if reading the policy would require you to spend hours squinting, you should visit an optometrist and get new glasses perhaps. I think the relevant word in what you wrote is 'boredom'. Well, your 'boredom' with reading the policy may have a cost that you will pay.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ There you go again, lecturing someone else.

I think calm's "mistake(s)" was 1. being suckered into paying for a soon-to-expire insurance policy by an "unethical" banking rep, and 2. not bother retrieving his premiums back even it may have been peanuts since the "insured" loan balance was only $3K. Ie. premiums paid may have been a few hundreds but times that for the remaining few years (3 or 4?) add up.

As for point 1. above, he may not had a choice to purchase the insurance policy given it was "loan insurance" ... i.e the bank forces you to "buy" the insurance in order to get the loan. Another banking scam. [ I don't dispute he should have read the policy if it was a "voluntary" independent one. Ie. not bank-forced policy so it wasn't his fault in this case. ]


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

Longtimeago said:


> When does something become your responsibility?


.
I admit that I should of checked the insurance terms.
I admit it was my fault for not doing so.
I am not asking for a refund.
I am simply stating that because the bank "Gamed Me", I will not ever step inside RBC doors again.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ You're too nice ... to a fault (hate to say this).

Even you won't step through the doors of RBC again ... the unethical banking rep gets a promotion and continues ripping others (worst yet, seniors) off.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

calm said:


> .
> I admit that I should of checked the insurance terms.
> I admit it was my fault for not doing so.
> I am not asking for a refund.
> I am simply stating that because the bank "Gamed Me", I will not ever step inside RBC doors again.


That's fine calm, I just get tired of reading 'insurance' stories that never say, 'I shoulda read the policy.'

I would suggest though that rather than saying, 'never again will I step inside RBC', you consider saying, 'I won't go back to RBC for anything unless I make sure of all the terms and conditions to anything I agree to with them.' Otherwise you may fall into another common trap which can be summarized as, 'cutting off your nose to spite your face.'

Suppose RBC offers a GIC tomorrow with a better rate than anyone else and you just happen to be looking to buy a GIC? Are you going to say, 'I'll take a lower rate from some other bank because I want to try and 'punish' RBC. That would in fact only 'punish' you, AGAIN.

RBC is no different than any of the other major banks, so if you are going to deal with any of them for anything, there is no reason to treat any of them differently.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ You're too nice ... to a fault (hate to say this).
> 
> Even you won't step through the doors of RBC again ... the unethical banking rep gets a promotion and continues ripping others (worst yet, seniors) off.


You are ASSUMING the bank rep was unethical Beaver101. That may be true or it may not, you can't judge that unless you knew every detail of what happened. Suppose the bank rep was relatively new in the job and also hadn't read the terms? Suppose the bank rep didn't realize the age of calm and his brother was 69? Or just had it slip his mind? Bank reps are people just like anyone else and can make mistakes. We don't know whether the rep was purposely unethical or not.

I do agree however that it should not have gone unchallenged. Simply 'voting with your feet' as some people do does not help a business to learn from THEIR mistakes either. If a restaurant serves you lousy food, you should tell them it was not satisfactory, not just pay and walk out never to return.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

I could give you another story ......
When my twin brother died, he owed about 3 thousand on his VISA and had about 2 thousand in a savings account. (The savings account was not held jointly.)
I decided to just leave the money in the savings account and use it to continue paying the house mortgage and the outstanding "Uninsured" loan. (The account was set up to allow mortgage payments auto-pilot.)
When the mortgage came due, I realized that RBC took all the money from the account and paid it all on VISA.
I never argued.
I just sold the jointly owned house as quickly as I could and paid everything off.

What I noticed is that when the Bank was treating me like a sucker there were no witnesses. But when they had me in an office detailing stuff they had 2 witnesses just to cover their asses. And they all played stupid. Said that I should make a claim to pay the loan off and knew my age. Said that it was a good idea for me to leave the money in the account and allow the mortgage to be withdrawn from the account and then claimed it themselves.

They knew exactly what they were doing. These 3 people attending the meeting do this estate stuff all day and every day. They all knew what was really going to take place.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

calm said:


> I could give you another story ......
> When my twin brother died, he owed about 3 thousand on his VISA and had about 2 thousand in a savings account. (The savings account was not held jointly.)
> I decided to just leave the money in the savings account and use it to continue paying the house mortgage and the outstanding "Uninsured" loan. (The account was set up to allow mortgage payments auto-pilot.)
> When the mortgage came due, I realized that RBC took all the money from the account and paid it all on VISA.
> ...


When someone dies, we have to deal with things that we may never have had to deal with before and which we do not fully understand. It happens at a stressful time as well obviously. 

The bank has the right to take any credit card debt or personal loan debt from an account before it is closed. There was nothing unusual therefore in them taking the $2000 to pay towards the $3000 Visa debt. So that was normal and has nothing to do with the loan insurance issue.

You just didn't know that the cash in the account would be used to pay the Visa debt, as per normal.









What Happens to a Bank Account After Death? | Finder Canada


Learn what happens to your bank account when you die plus the process of how to access a bank account after death.




www.finder.com


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Consider what happens when someone dies who leaves an outstanding credit card balance and who has no 'estate' to speak of. Unless it was a joint credit card account, the card issuer usually ends up writing the debt off.








Credit card debt after death | Everything you need to know | Finder Canada


What happens to credit card debt when you die? Find out who is responsible, how you can manage it and what you need to do after the death of a loved one.




www.finder.com





In your case calm there was money to pay the visa debt both from the cash in the bank account and from the estate after you sold the house. So the bank got the money they were entitled to. But often they lose the money they were entitled to because there is no money to pay them.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

Longtimeago said:


> The bank has the right to take any credit card debt or personal loan debt from an account before it is closed.


.
My problem was that I went to a meeting and showed the death certificate and then told them what my economic plans were. I detailed about how the bank could continue paying mortgage out of the account and they made no objection. I mentioned that I would continue paying loan as well and they were the people who suggested I collect from the loan insurance policy and they knew how old I was.

Three people sat in a room with the sole intention of having me "Relax" knowing full well that the account was gonna be emptied before I even completed the meeting.

I had no problems paying the bills, I just needed a plan. And I told the meeting what my plan was.
I thought I had left the bank with a plan ........ and found out that the bank is in charge of making "Plans" and not me..

Stupid ..... I know.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Is it possible I’m Not seeing some posts? I don’t see a post from Calm. I don’t see any details of the insurance policy.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ There you go again, lecturing someone else.
> 
> I think calm's "mistake(s)" was 1. being suckered into paying for a soon-to-expire insurance policy by an "unethical" banking rep, and 2. not bother retrieving his premiums back even it may have been peanuts since the "insured" loan balance was only $3K. Ie. premiums paid may have been a few hundreds but times that for the remaining few years (3 or 4?) add up.
> 
> As for point 1. above, he may not had a choice to purchase the insurance policy given it was "loan insurance" ... i.e the bank forces you to "buy" the insurance in order to get the loan. Another banking scam. [ I don't dispute he should have read the policy if it was a "voluntary" independent one. Ie. not bank-forced policy so it wasn't his fault in this case. ]


Forcing to buy insurance as a condition of credit was a big no-no when I was TD. It was drilled into us. If I recall, it’s actually illegal tied selling. If I also recall correctly, the application itself makes it very clear that it is an optional product. I’m trying to find a copy of the application, but no luck so far.

we also allowed insurance purchasers the ability to cancel within 30 days with all premiums refunded. This allowed customers quite a bit of time to read the policy in full.

It‘s a shared responsibility.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> Is it possible I’m Not seeing some posts? I don’t see a post from Calm. I don’t see any details of the insurance policy.


calm likes to post inflamatory stuff without evidence.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> calm likes to post inflamatory stuff without evidence.


I am only talking about a visit to a bank.
It is not as though I am talking about the Holocaust and need to provide evidence,
Relax. Give Your Head a Shake.
Why would I ever waste my time telling lies here?
I don't know you and I will never meet you.

I may shade the "gossip" but the facts are absolutely true.
When I write I do my best to entertain and place my views dramatically, but I don't alter facts.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

calm said:


> I am only talking about a visit to a bank.
> It is not as though I am talking about the Holocaust and need to provide evidence,
> Relax. Give Your Head a Shake.
> Why would I ever waste my time telling lies here?
> ...


Several posters post unsubstantiated lies on a regular basis.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> You are ASSUMING the bank rep was unethical Beaver101. That may be true or it may not, you can't judge that unless you knew every detail of what happened. Suppose the bank rep was relatively new in the job and also hadn't read the terms? Suppose the bank rep didn't realize the age of calm and his brother was 69? Or just had it slip his mind? Bank reps are people just like anyone else and can make mistakes. We don't know whether the rep was purposely unethical or not.
> 
> I do agree however that it should not have gone unchallenged. Simply 'voting with your feet' as some people do does not help a business to learn from THEIR mistakes either. If a restaurant serves you lousy food, you should tell them it was not satisfactory, not just pay and walk out never to return.


 ... it's not assuming because the facts (or what actually happened) are laid out by calm. 

You may try to justify the mistake made by the banking rep as being "relatively new in his job" - well, that's not calm's problem or his responsibility that the bank don't train their reps "properly" to "read" their own insurance terms. Is it? [And I would highly doubt they don't train their reps. any other banking terms & conditions that benefits themselves or protect their own asses ... as per calm's later posts regarding the bank "auto-dipping his deceased twin's savings account and the need to have 3 other "banking" witnesses there when they called him in on how to settle the deceased debts". I'm surprised they didn't call in the CFO or the cops for that matter.]

And in regards to the rep who didn't realize the age of calm as being 69 - seriously. Are you for real? I gather the rep was blind as well if not ignorant too. How hard was it for the rep to look at calm's banking profile (that has to be update periodically too as per banking terms) on his computer screen? For the "slipping his mind" that would be considered pure INCOMPETENCE. And whose responsibility is that? I guess according to you, the customers. 

And in this case, I don't deem it was simply a "mistake", or an innocent mistake. Because why didn't offer to refund the premiums for the f-up? Because it never occurred to the UNETHICAL BANKING REP to 1. admit a mistake, and 2. remedy the mistake such as refunding the premiums ... I gather it's not the bank's responsibility to do that either, right?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

calm said:


> .
> My problem was that I went to a meeting and showed the death certificate and then told them what my economic plans were. I detailed about how the bank could continue paying mortgage out of the account and they made no objection. I mentioned that I would continue paying loan as well and they were the people who suggested I collect from the loan insurance policy and they knew how old I was.
> 
> Three people sat in a room with the sole intention of having me "Relax" knowing full well that the account was gonna be emptied before I even completed the meeting.
> ...





calm said:


> I could give you another story ......
> When my twin brother died, he owed about 3 thousand on his VISA and had about 2 thousand in a savings account. (The savings account was not held jointly.)
> I decided to just leave the money in the savings account and use it to continue paying the house mortgage and the outstanding "Uninsured" loan. (The account was set up to allow mortgage payments auto-pilot.)
> When the mortgage came due, I realized that RBC took all the money from the account and paid it all on VISA.
> ...


 ... I believe you 200%.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> Forcing to buy insurance as a condition of credit was a big no-no when I was TD. It was drilled into us. If I recall, it’s actually illegal tied selling. If I also recall correctly, the application itself makes it very clear that it is an optional product. I’m trying to find a copy of the application, but no luck so far.


 well, the bank he had experienced with was 'RBC' ... different bank ... different policies (terms& conditions). Plus the "tied-selling" may have not be "illegal" a decade ago (given calm's age).



> we also allowed insurance purchasers the ability to cancel within 30 days with all premiums refunded. This allowed customers quite a bit of time to read the policy in full.
> 
> It‘s a shared responsibility.


 .. we're not talking about the depth of insurance contract. 

Just the selling part ... why did RBC sell an insurance policy that's set to terminate at age 70, to a "senior" at age 69? And then continue to collect the premiums when the policy is no longer inforce? Duh.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Here’s the top of a TD insurance waiver. I believe the acceptance form has an identical header. Pretty clear the you need to be under 70 for coverage. I suspect RBCs is similar


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Well, calm was between the age of 18 "to 69" when they sold him the policy.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> well, the bank he had experienced with was 'RBC' ... different bank ... different policies (terms& conditions). Plus the "tied-selling" may have not be "illegal" a decade ago (given calm's age).
> 
> .. we're not talking about the depth of insurance contract.
> 
> Just the selling part ... why did RBC sell an insurance policy that's set to terminate at age 70, to a "senior" at age 69? And then continue to collect the premiums when the policy is no longer inforce? Duh.


the collection of premiums after the policy ends does seem to be an Error, but I’d don’t recall This ever happening at TD. Once the loan is paid off or the policy ends, the premiums should stop. Getting a refund should be a no brainer.

it appears tied selling is against the bank act (section 459.1). Not sure when it was enacted, but I suspect it‘s been around decades. Here’s RBCs outline.



http://www.rbc.com/Coercive_tied_selling_EN_07570_2010_May.PDF


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

calm said:


> .
> Three people sat in a room with the sole intention of having me "Relax" knowing full well that the account was gonna be emptied before I even completed the meeting.


That is an ASSUMPTION on your part calm. The 3 people in the room did not work for the credit card department. Did you tell them $3k was outstanding on your brother's credit card? If you did then they should have known and been able to tell you that the money would be taken. But again, you are dealing with PEOPLE, not a machine. There are plenty of bank employees who do not know any more than you do about how things work when there is a death.

You are saying that they INTENTIONALLY lied to you and that to me is a real stretch. Three PEOPLE who would knowingly give you incorrect information. And to what purpose? They had no need to lie to you, they could just have told you, 'planning to use it to pay on the loan won't work since our credit card department is owed more than that and they will take all the money that is currently in the account.'

Bear in mind that unless it was a joint account with your name on it, which I believe you said it was not, you couldn't withdraw the cash anyway, so where is there motive to deceive you? Answer, there was none.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> the collection of premiums after the policy ends does seem to be an Error, but I’d don’t recall This ever happening at TD. *Once the loan is paid off or the policy ends, the premiums should stop*. Getting a refund should be a no brainer.


 ... well, calm's loan was paid off some years after age 69 with premiums still being charged. And yet the policy was "terminated at age 70" according to the rep's now reading of the insurance contract. Ie. calm has been paying for a non-existing policy.



> it appears tied selling is against the bank act (section 459.1). Not sure when it was enacted, but I suspect it‘s been around decades. Here’s RBCs outline.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.rbc.com/Coercive_tied_selling_EN_07570_2010_May.PDF


... are you expecting non-bank employees (or say your average customer) to know this?


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> ... are you expecting non-bank employees (or say your average customer) to know this?


no.

but the premiums for a 69 year old would have been outrageous. I think the average consumer would have questioned the pricing and the requirement that the insurance was “required”.

getting the premiums back should be “easy”.

maybe I should start a business where I represent bank clients. Help them get fees and charges back....I take a small percentage.......say 60%.....sounds like a “great“ deal - says the former banker. Lol.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

Longtimeago said:


> Did you tell them $3k was outstanding on your brother's credit card?


I made an appointment and waited 2 weeks to see them.
And when I arrived at the bank I am quite certian that the Banksters knew more about me then I did.
The account was active for five years and without any hassle or abuse or NSF.
-----
I think that the bankster who sold me the policy knew how desperate I was to get the loan approval and slid that insurance policy in which probably paid the bankster a bonus. 
I think when the insurance is sold it is considered as being part of the total loan amount and thus is fully charged at the time the loan is approved. (I probably paid interest on the cost of the policy because the cost of the policy is included in the loan.)


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> ... well, calm's loan was paid off some years after age 69 with premiums still being charged. And yet the policy was "terminated at age 70" according to the rep's now reading of the insurance contract. Ie. calm has been paying for a non-existing policy.
> 
> ... are you expecting non-bank employees (or say your average customer) to know this?


More supposition. Where in anything calm has written so far, do you see that he was paying for the loan insurance after age 70?

Do you see him telling us, 'the insurance premium was $100 per year and was deducted each year in January from our loan payments, as shown in this copy of my loan statements till the loan was paid off.' How do we know if the insurance premium was only deducted for the first year and then stopped when they reached age 70 or not?

All I seem to see is that calm paid very little attention to this loan and the payments. You are making assumptions and quite frankly, it appears calm is also, after the fact. Calm has not in fact actually stated that premiums continued to be taken from his or his brother's account after they reached age 70.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> no.


 ... so where does that leave the bank on the "shared responsibility"?



> but the premiums for a 69 year old would have been outrageous. I think the average consumer would have questioned the pricing and the requirement that the insurance was “required”.


 ... what requirements? health requirements? as for pricing, wouldn't that be a flat rate? if not, then all the reason the UNETHICAL banking rep should have his/her eyes opened on that "senior" rate, n'est ce pas?



> getting the premiums back should be “easy”.


 ... calm's fault of generosity for not claiming it. But it should be the bank's admission of a mistake and offer to refund the premiums first. 



> maybe I should start a business where I represent bank clients. Help them get fees and charges back....I take a small percentage.......say 60%.....sounds like a “great“ deal - says the former banker. Lol.


 ... you could but with a 60% charge-back, you will definitely be twiddling your thumbs waiting for your first client.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> More supposition. Where in anything calm has written so far, do you see that he was paying for the loan insurance after age 70?
> 
> Do you see him telling us, 'the insurance premium was $100 per year and was deducted each year in January from our loan payments, as shown in this copy of my loan statements till the loan was paid off.' How do we know if the insurance premium was only deducted for the first year and then stopped when they reached age 70 or not?
> 
> All I seem to see is that calm paid very little attention to this loan and the payments. You are making assumptions and quite frankly, it appears calm is also, after the fact. Calm has not in fact actually stated that premiums continued to be taken from his or his brother's account after they reached age 70.


 ... let's see what he respond with before you say "more supposition" ... more applicable to you than me I'm afraid.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

calm said:


> I made an appointment and waited 2 weeks to see them.
> And when I arrived at the bank I am quite certian that the Banksters knew more about me then I did.
> The account was active for five years and without any hassle or abuse or NSF.
> -----
> ...


Here are the important words in your comment calm. 'I think', 'I think', 'I probably'. 

By your own admission in the last sentence, you do not appear to know how much the premium was for the loan insurance or how it was paid for or when. You don't KNOW.

You are simply admitting that you did not pay attention to what you were buying and now you do not even know what you bought or if you paid for it. Amazing.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

I think I have some of the paperwork and the letter from the insurance company refusing to honour the claim because I was 70 years old. I would search it out if I thought it would change anything.

But .... let's just drop it. I appreciate reading your opinions .... but this is not a court of law. Let's just enjoy our banter and not legalize it all. I just wanted to mention something that happened to me inside a Royal Bank.

I think when they make a loan and when it is insured, it is all considered as being part of the loan and not something I paid separately. If my payment was 238 bucks per month over 5 years, it included the cost of the policy.

Yes ..... it is "I think" and "I think" ..... I got no proof as to what the banksters intention was/is.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> ... so where does that leave the bank on the "shared responsibility"?
> 
> ... what requirements? health requirements? as for pricing, wouldn't that be a flat rate? if not, then all the reason the UNETHICAL banking rep should have his/her eyes opened on that "senior" rate, n'est ce pas?
> 
> ...


when I was working there was a “tied selling” brochure in an obvious location. Additionally, iirc, the insurance application Clearly states the insurance is optional. “I‘d like a Big Mac deal please. Oh, the super size option is mandatory...I guess I’ll take it”. Shared responsibility. The seller of any product needs to be clean and concise.....the buyer needs to question things that seem unusual. I don’t see what the debate is about. 

from what I understand, calm was told the insurance was mandatory or required. Pricing is based on age And per $1000 borrowed. The older you are , the higher the premium. Isn’t all insurance like that? 

painting all advisors as unethical every time something seems awry is short-sighted in my opinion. At some point, consumers need to take some responsibility too. Banking is one of the most regulated industries And the consumer protection measures are always increasing. 

if you’re inclined out of need or want to use an in-branch advisor, may I offer some advice. Simply ask the BM to be referred to his/her most experienced/trusted advisor. The last thing a manger wants to do is deal with a drawn-out complaint. If the BM is making the referral (rather than getting assigned a random) advisor, your chances of having a smooth transaction increase a lot. Would you feel more comfortable with a somewhat older, more experienced doctor? Probably....not to say the kid right out of mer school doesn’t know his stuff but they miss miss something in the communication of all your medical issues, diagnoses or side effects. Subject matter experts require both training and experience. Not everything can be blamed on lack of training.

most mistakes/miscommunications are due to lack of training, not lack of ethics. consumers demanding better branch hours has led to more part time staff (ie. younger, less experienced, less career-minded).


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Money172375 said:


> Is it possible I’m Not seeing some posts? I don’t see a post from Calm. I don’t see any details of the insurance policy.


Maybe you put him on Ignore? It is a useful forum feature


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> when I was working there was a “tied selling” brochure in an obvious location. Additionally, iirc, the insurance application Clearly states the insurance is optional. “I‘d like a Big Mac deal please. Oh, the super size option is mandatory...I guess I’ll take it”. Shared responsibility. * The seller of any product needs to be clean and concise*.....the buyer needs to question things that seem unusual. I don’t see what the debate is about.


 ... that's only part of the solution to the problem(s). The seller needs to be honest and ethical. What's stated on an application is different from what the actual practice is done by the seller. And usually with these financial products, the seller is supposedly be more knowledgeable than the buyer otherwise the buyer should be working for the bank. Is it not?



> from what I understand, calm was told the insurance was mandatory or required. Pricing is based on age And per $1000 borrowed. The older you are , the higher the premium. Isn’t all insurance like that?


 ...normally which means (repeating my previous point): the banking rep. would have "looked up his age" in order to charge the proper (higher) premiums. Which goes to the point of buyer is age 69 ... and giving the benefit of the doubt here that this is a newbee banking rep who doesn't realize the policy terminates at age 70 ... mistake made! What does he/she do when this is identified some years later? NOTHING. HOW ETHICAL!



> painting all advisors as unethical every time something seems awry is short-sighted in my opinion. At some point, consumers need to take some responsibility too. Banking is one of the most regulated industries And the consumer protection measures are always increasing.


 ... I'm NOT painting "all" advisors are being unethical but here is another real-life example of one (justified as being as "only human" or "new to the industry" ... excuses excuses excuses). Just that there're plenty of them there as I haven't repeat my own (similar) experiences with the bank(s). I would hope banking is one of the most regulated industries (and likely so on the corporate level) but when it comes to the consumers ... a different ball-game. And I would think you would be the rare few who don't fall into the bad apples bushel (including management).




> if you’re inclined out of need or want to use an in-branch advisor, may I offer some advice. *Simply ask the BM to be referred to his/her most experienced/trusted advisor.* The last thing a manger wants to do is deal with a drawn-out complaint. If the BM is making the referral (rather than getting assigned a random) advisor, your chances of having a smooth transaction increase a lot. Would you feel more comfortable with a somewhat older, more experienced doctor? Probably....not to say the kid right out of mer school doesn’t know his stuff but they miss miss something in the communication of all your medical issues, diagnoses or side effects. Subject matter experts require both training and experience. Not everything can be blamed on lack of training.


 ... are you kidding? Some of the BMs I had met was worse (sleazy) than the lower level staff ... at least the lower staff had an excuse of not being experienced enough or required more training. Let's be honest, the BM's primary goal is to ensure there's enough dough coming into his/her branch .. apart from managing the minions.



> most mistakes/miscommunications are due to lack of training, not lack of ethics. consumers demanding better branch hours has led to more part time staff (ie. younger, less experienced, less career-minded).


 ... I would hope so but this so-called "lack of training" excuse ain't the consumers' fault is it? You ought to see the turnover rate at my local branch(es). You get a new advisor or personal bank manager/rep "every" year....faster than you can grow your own cukes. And what happened to the supposedly "high(est)-standards" touted by the banks? Looks good on paper. 

So much for trying to establish a client-banking relationship too.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

agent99 said:


> Maybe you put him on Ignore?* It is a useful forum feature*


 ... unpractical in actuality.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> from what I understand, calm was told the insurance was mandatory or required.


I don't think I was told that it was a term of the loan that I purchase insurance.
It was sort of recommended that I do.
Sort of suggesting that it was worth the "investment" of paying for insurance. Or a prudent thing to do, considering my age.
I never gave it a second thought. .... No sweat. It was not going to bankrupt me. I kind of figured it to be the cost of doing business.
I never thought I would ever need to collect on the policy.
I had sewer problems at my house and it had to be repaired pronto.
Sewer was entering my house. I needed to hire a backhoe and dig up my front yard.
I was in a hurry and I was desperate. The banksters knew this.

I just think that no bankster should of even mentioned life insurance to me when they knew my age was 69.

That was the original sin. (Plus me being too trusty and not hiring a forensic guy to dissect the policy.)

Why didn't they sell me a policy just to cover one year of the 5 year loan?

Obviously, nobody would purchase insurance and pay a five year premium while knowing it was only good for one year and not the full 5 year loan duration.

I think the banksters were so embarrassed for what they had done, that when at the meeting (after my twin had died) they told me not to worry about the loan because it was insured. It was not until many weeks after the meeting that I got notice that the policy was actually invalid because of my age. Those at the meeting knew my age.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

calm said:


> I don't think I was told that it was a term of the loan that I purchase insurance.
> It was sort of recommended that I do.
> Sort of suggesting that it was worth the "investment" of paying for insurance. Or a prudent thing to do, considering my age.
> I never gave it a second thought. .... No sweat. It was not going to bankrupt me. I kind of figured it to be the cost of doing business.
> ...


You know, the way you add info in dribs and drabs and use terms like, 'I never gave it a second thought' really say a lot about how you tend to think and do business. 

It also sounds now like you and your brother did not need a loan, only you did. Was he just a co-signer? If so, you are now telling us that you thought you could get out of paying the outstanding balance on YOUR loan because your co-signer died. Is that right? 

Your brothers account being used to pay on his outstanding Visa balance is a non-issue as I have said and that part of your story is irrelevant really other than to show once again that you didn't understand that's normal.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

Longtimeago said:


> You know, the way you add info in dribs and drabs and use terms like, 'I never gave it a second thought' really say a lot about how you tend to think and do business.


The house was a joint ownership.
In true fact, I may of been a co-signer with my twin.
I did not care. I would of killed by grandma to get the loan.
It was his bank. I dealt with the CIBC.
The loan was house improvement. Sewer repairs.
I admit ..... I should of been just as suspicious with the bankers as you are with my story here.
Are you a bankster or an economic terrorist?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

calm said:


> The house was a joint ownership.
> In true fact, I may of been a co-signer with my twin.
> I did not care. I would of killed by grandma to get the loan.
> It was his bank. I dealt with the CIBC.
> ...


And again you use a term 'I did not care' that reflects on you and no one else. The words someone uses when speaking or writing tell us a lot about that person.

I suggest you start 'caring' about contracts you sign from now on calm and learn from your past mistakes. The bank staff may have made mistakes in how they dealt with you, perhaps they should have realized that you are a 'don't care' type of person and tried to protect you from yourself but in reality, that is not their job it is YOUR job.

I have no connection to any bank etc. calm, only as a customer.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

So we get mail all the time from banks that want to sell us insurance. We are 74 and 69 years of age.

If you read the terms in the fine print, we would pay premiums and never collect the insurance benefit until we paid for it in full.

Do the banks not know they are selling crap to unsuspecting clients ? Of course they do. They just don't care.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

RBC - Monthly premium rate is about 10 bucks per month.
I see (Today) where the document says you get Zilch after you turn 70 years of age. I did not even look at the pages as I signed them. I trusted the economic terrorist (bankster) not to swindle me.

(PDF Document)


https://www.rbcroyalbank.com/onlinebanking/lending_centre/loanprotector/LP%20Booklet%20EN.pdf



I did not object or investigate because I did not care.
When you are borrowing 10 thousand and then add some small item like 10 bucks for insurance.
Do you really care? Such is the cost of doing business.

Like I said ..... the original sin, ..... the bank should never of suggested a policy where I agreed to pay 10 bucks per month over a 5 year period (in advance) while knowing I was not eligible for coverage after the first year.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Last week we co-signed a truck loan for our son, because he could get the 0% financing with us on the loan.

The finance guy asked if we wanted disability insurance. There was no mention of any restrictions and we already had a pile of paperwork to plow through.

But I knew from experience we would pay premiums and never collect because we wouldn't be eligible for some reason.

Reading the fine print is one thing. Understanding it is another. It is written by lawyers so many people don't understand the full consequences.

Oh gee.........didn't our agent explain that to you ? Oh well........nothing we can do now.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

calm said:


> Like I said ..... the original sin, ..... the bank should never of suggested a policy where I agreed to pay 10 bucks per month over a 5 year period (in advance) while knowing I was not eligible for coverage after the first year.


NO, the 'original sin' was YOU signing a policy agreeing to pay $10 per month over a 5 year period which would not cover you after the first year!

It is YOUR job to know what you are signing for. You really do need to try and understand that calm.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Longtimeago said:


> NO, the 'original sin' was YOU signing a policy agreeing to pay $10 per month over a 5 year period which would not cover you after the first year!
> 
> It is YOUR job to know what you are signing for. You really do need to try and understand that calm.


is RBC saying that the premiums should have been collected for 5 years? Or that the premiums should have stopped after year 1 but continued in error? It’s my understanding the premiums should have stopped. And what’s this about paying insurance premiums in advance? Premiums should be charged monthly and be added to the regular loan payment amount. 

if there is no coverage, there should be no premiums. Selling insurance to a 69 year is not the problem...some customers may want it. If 69 is bad, is 68 ok? How about 66? 61? 55?

the policy also allows for a 30 day cancellation, which I suspected. That’s a pretty decent consumer protection. Perhaps we need more independent oversight of sales practices.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

My guess is that if the poster spent half as much time speaking to RBC about this issue in the first place as has been spent complaining about the issue on this forum, it would probably have been resolved by the bank.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ I don't see anything wrong with his complaint on this forum with the banks' shortfalls (and UNethicalness) so that the "UNprejudiced Others (the fishes)" on this forum can learn from calm's admission of his "sin of not bitching to the banks to refund his premiums" for a non-existing policy they sold him on.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> NO, the 'original sin' was YOU signing a policy agreeing to pay $10 per month over a 5 year period which would not cover you after the first year!
> 
> It is YOUR job to know what you are signing for. You really do need to try and understand that calm.


 .. then what's the bankster's job? Take-in your money and when you do REALLY complain, get some other 3 banking officers present to witness your argument with them?

Seriously, according to LTA, the customer is ALWAYS wrong 'cause he's the dummy. Except for LTA of course.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Money172375 said:


> is RBC saying that the premiums should have been collected for 5 years? Or that the premiums should have stopped after year 1 but continued in error? It’s my understanding the premiums should have stopped. And what’s this about paying insurance premiums in advance? Premiums should be charged monthly and be added to the regular loan payment amount.
> 
> if there is no coverage, there should be no premiums. Selling insurance to a 69 year is not the problem...some customers may want it. If 69 is bad, is 68 ok? How about 66? 61? 55?
> 
> the policy also allows for a 30 day cancellation, which I suspected. That’s a pretty decent consumer protection. Perhaps we need more independent oversight of sales practices.


If you read all that has been posted Money172375, you will see that we have never been told what actually happened as far as how much was paid and for what time periods. The reason we have never been told is because calm doesn't actually know the answers. He just knows that he tried to claim and was denied. 

Maybe we should discuss the moral question related to this issue. You own a house jointly and so take a loan jointly for a necessary repair. your co-owner dies and you then try to claim on the loan insurance for the outstanding balance.

Should you not just try to claim for half perhaps? That was your co-owners share, not the total amount. Is it morally right to try and claim for a debt YOU owe when your co-owner dies? Is your indebtedness not still valid?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> .. then what's the bankster's job? Take-in your money and when you do REALLY complain, get some other 3 banking officers present to witness your argument with them?
> 
> Seriously, according to LTA, the customer is ALWAYS wrong 'cause he's the dummy. Except for LTA of course.


Tell me Beaver101, do you sign things without knowing what you are signing? It is not a question of what is the bank's job, it is a question of what is YOUR job. Someone cannot make their own responsibilities disappear by simply blaming someone else.

By his own admission, calm says he didn't care, didn't pay attention, just wanted to know, 'where do I sign to get the money.' For all we know, he was told the insurance will only cover you for the first year and the premiums will be cancelled after that. By his own admission, he does not know if he paid 5 years of premiums or not. 

IF the bank did make a mistake and take premiums for 5 years, we don't know if they did, but even if they did make that mistake, it does not mean the fault is ALL theirs. It is not a question of ONE party being at fault. It may be BOTH parties made mistakes but the ONE thing we do know for sure is that calm made a mistake in not KNOWING what agreement he was signing up to.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> If you read all that has been posted Money172375, you will see that we have never been told what actually happened as far as how much was paid and for what time periods. The reason we have never been told is because calm doesn't actually know the answers. He just knows that he tried to claim and was denied.
> 
> Maybe we should discuss the moral question related to this issue. You own a house jointly and so take a loan jointly for a necessary repair. your co-owner dies and you then try to claim on the loan insurance for the outstanding balance.
> 
> *Should you not just try to claim for half perhaps?* That was your co-owners share, not the total amount. Is it morally right to try and claim for a debt YOU owe when your co-owner dies? Is your indebtedness not still valid?


 .. did it ever occurred to you that the (higher) premiums charged to him would cover both owners of the loan (aka joint premiums) regardless of who dies first? I don't suppose the bank or you would give him 2 coverages for the price of one or better yet, give him a discount? Talk about your own moral justification of claiming for half only (of what?) ... what a joke.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> Tell me Beaver101, do you sign things without knowing what you are signing? It is not a question of what is the bank's job, it is a question of what is YOUR job. Someone cannot make their own responsibilities disappear by simply blaming someone else.


 ... 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?


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

There is somewhat of a discount for joint insurance policies....

”Joint life coverage is calculated by multiplying the cost of single coverage for the eldest insured borrower by 1.7. Provincial sales tax will be added to your premium where applicable.”


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> There is somewhat of a discount for joint insurance policies....
> 
> ”Joint life coverage is calculated by multiplying the cost of single coverage for the eldest insured borrower by 1.7. Provincial sales tax will be added to your premium where applicable.”


 ... even it's "somewhat of a discount for joint insurance", both him and his brother was "supposedly" covered or falsely covered. And yet LTA is suggesting on his high moral principles, calm should have be claiming only half of the insurance ... for the loan. I'm in tears from LMAO with LTA's response 'cause the insurance doesn't even exists!


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> ... even it's "somewhat of a discount for joint insurance", both him and his brother was "supposedly" covered or falsely covered. And yet LTA is suggesting on his high moral principles, calm should have be claiming only half of the insurance ... for the loan. I'm in tears from LMAO with LTA's response 'cause the insurance doesn't even exists!


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.
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.
They could of given me the loan without insurance.
It is not as though the law said they had to insure the loan.
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.

We were both the same age. (Identical twin brothers)


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

calm said:


> 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.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

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.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ 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.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> ... 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.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

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.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> 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.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> 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.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> .. 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.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> ... 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.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

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.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

ian said:


> 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.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

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.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

ian said:


> 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.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

ian said:


> 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!


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

calm said:


> ......
> I totally agree. Totally.
> That is exactly my fault. And I am too lazy.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

calm said:


> ......
> I totally agree. Totally.
> That is exactly my fault. And I am too lazy.
> 
> ...


im still of the opinion that it was not a 5 year policy and that premiums ended when the policy ended at age 70


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

Money172375 said:


> 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".


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

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.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> *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.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

ian said:


> 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!!!!


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Plugging Along said:


> 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 :
> ...


 ... 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.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> 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]


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

calm said:


> 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?


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... 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.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

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.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Plugging Along said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 .


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

....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.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> ... 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,


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> 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.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Plugging Along said:


> 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.


Agreed. Time for post to end.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

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.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> ... 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.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> 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.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> Agreed. Time for post to end.


 ... don't think so. As other unbiased forum members have not addressed the *OP's* concerns.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

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".


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

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.


----------

