Thanks to being told by the missus to get back to the day job, I have of late been attending a welter of networking events.
More abbreviations than you could throw a spellcheck at (still busted, eh, Blogger?), there are only so many 'Full Englishes' or personal coaches and aloe vera sales ladies I can afford, both financially and psychologically.
But I have noticed something.
At three recent events, the near obligatory mortgage broker/IFA has stood up and said ''What if I said I could wipe out your mortgage obligation? Would you be interested?'.
It would appear that there is the potential for some bit of legal jiggery-pokery to do just that.
I don't know the full details, because those making the pitch suddenly got all vague, but this is not compo for mis-selling, more a bit of 'no-win, no-fee' financial ambulance chasing based on no actual wrong-doing, but simply poor contract wording.
So the issue is not so much 'could', which it may well be possible to, or 'would', which it seems many might. But what about 'should'? This does rather strike me as a short-term pyramid at best, which will profit some but damage the majority, from the rates of those paying now, to the chances of those to come in getting a good deal.
So I said so. And I was pleasantly surprised to find the room agreed with me. Now it may be this is not being explained very well, but as it stands it's looking like the next 'dodge' from an already bizarre sector that I hope will get sorted... quick.
What's this to do with matters eco? Not a lot. But I am minded of the time a very big multi-national got a few £M from a very big quango to help them cut the size, and hence costs of making their commercial product.
If it's there for the taking, why not grab it? But really, and ignoring the more pressing question of the responbility to the public of those doling out the dough, should they have done?
No comments:
Post a Comment