Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
LargelyIgnorant

Ensuring Phil & Kirsty Are Liable

Recommended Posts

Hi,

Are there any legal eagles that can answer this please?

The vendors of endowment mortgages have been found to have mis-sold these mortgages. This liability has ensured that they must pay back some of the people they have taken for a ride.

It appears that the amazing lack of caveats in property ramping programmes such as P&K's is designed to please the advertisers on C4 who are selling mortgages. These people are advising the public to take on huge amounts of debt because 'independent' studies are saying that the market will rise xx% over the next five years. Didn't see the whole programme, but didn't see any warning such as 'The value of investments may go down as well as up'.

My question is this: What action can one take today to ensure that if there is a large crash, the victims (e.g a FTB who purchases as a result of this programme) have the best possible chance of success in the future when suing the VIs for their losses?

Would formal complaints to the FSA be the way to go? What other options are there, and how would these relate to any other VIs such as the editor of the Express, etc?

Not only may this kind of action help victims recover their losses at some stage in the future, perhaps it would make the rampers realise that they must give a more balanced view of property as an investment. Risk management is a vital component of business. How would one ensure that the rampers are exposed to the risks of their actions as much as possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These people are advising the public to take on huge amounts of debt because 'independent' studies are saying that the market will rise xx% over the next five years. Didn't see the whole programme, but didn't see any warning such as 'The value of investments may go down as well as up'.

Of course not, property is unregulated, if they had just done the same blatant and unqualified ramping of equities they would now be on their way to jail.

Edited by BuyingBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not, property is unregulated, if they had just done the same blatant and unqualified ramping of equities they would now be on their way to jail.

I would guess it would help if you could prove that they own property in the hot spots that they plug on the show. then you have the basis of an argument that they are plugging these areas to increase prices rather than giving people good advice on investing in property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Estate Agents Act 1979

Misrepresentation Act 1967

(see Mc Cullagh v. Lane Fox 1990)

Property Misdescriptions Act 1991

Human Rights Act 1999(?)

If either are members of a professional body a complaint to the body detailing the breach of conduct.

I'm pretty sure that at least a half arsed case (a frightner) could be cobbled together.

I'm not a lawyer btw. ;)

Edited by Duplex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fiddlesticks

You have no hope.

1) Property is not covered by the Financial Services and Markets Act.

2) For these purposes you can only sue people you have a contractual relationship with, which rules out Phil and Kirsty, the Daily Express, and everyone on Singing Pig.

3) The estate agents you buy through have no duty to advise you of the direction of the property market, they act on behalf of the vendor. The duty they owe you under the Property Misdescriptions Act is to describe the property properly. Perhaps if you could persuade them to put in writing that the property is guaranteed not to fall in value you could get them, good luck!

4) Your best hope is the mortgage advisor - they are regulated by FSMA so far as the loan they sell you is concerned, but not the property investment itself. If they mislead you about the loan you might have a case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was definately a point in the show where Phil got out a bundle of cash from his pocket showed it to the camera and said "I'm definately in" (or words to that effect) after ramping up one of the 10 areas.

Is this good enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was definately a point in the show where Phil got out a bundle of cash from his pocket showed it to the camera and said "I'm definately in" (or words to that effect) after ramping up one of the 10 areas.

Is this good enough?

No, but there again you know that - but still cling desperately on. Channel 4's legal team, who are far cleverer than you will have reviewed the show over and over, to ensure that it doesn't give reason for any legal action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guy_Montag

No, but there again you know that - but still cling desperately on. Channel 4's legal team, who are far cleverer than you will have reviewed the show over and over, to ensure that it doesn't give reason for any legal action.

Actually I doubt it, why would they have their legal team run over it? No programme maker is going to run every program, let alone every script past lawyers. It would cost a fortune & nothing would ever get done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I doubt it, why would they have their legal team run over it? No programme maker is going to run every program, let alone every script past lawyers. It would cost a fortune & nothing would ever get done.

You'd be surprised, why do you think the BBC employ over 20,000 people? Everything on 'live' radio is now scripted and vetted, they have to fill in a ten page health and safety risk assessment before commissioning any given show.

It certainly goes through lawyers, without a doubt, everything does now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but there again you know that - but still cling desperately on. Channel 4's legal team, who are far cleverer than you will have reviewed the show over and over, to ensure that it doesn't give reason for any legal action.

You have a much higher opinion of lawyers and legal teams' intelligence than I do. Most lawyers are merely skilled debaters and walking databases. Not much more to it.

I agree this thread is a non starter, but don't believe that just because Channel 4's legal team have looked at it that everything is fine.

How many times have we seen newspapers taken to task in court and losing? How many times have we seen financial firms fined by regulators and losing court cases over the wording in their advertising? All of which will have been given the once (twice, thrice?) over by these woopie-do legal teams.

NDL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd be surprised, why do you think the BBC employ over 20,000 people? Everything on 'live' radio is now scripted and vetted, they have to fill in a ten page health and safety risk assessment before commissioning any given show.

It certainly goes through lawyers, without a doubt, everything does now.

I know I'm nitpicking, but this was on C4 :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was there a duty of care?

Will there be a loss directely as a result of a breach of this duty?

If someone was to buy in one of the areas "recommended" in the programme as a result of watching this programme, and they faced a financial lose in a reasonable time in the future (5 years would be ideal as they would have references from the programme) I believe they would have a case.

They would have to prove;

They bought as a result of this programme

They made a financial loss as a result

I believe there was a duty of care as Phil and Kirsty are described as property experts and there is evidence, the programme itself.

Just need now to make the loss as a result.

Remember the defence will be many programmes like this, not experts, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a much higher opinion of lawyers and legal teams' intelligence than I do. Most lawyers are merely skilled debaters and walking databases. Not much more to it.

I agree this thread is a non starter, but don't believe that just because Channel 4's legal team have looked at it that everything is fine.

How many times have we seen newspapers taken to task in court and losing? How many times have we seen financial firms fined by regulators and losing court cases over the wording in their advertising? All of which will have been given the once (twice, thrice?) over by these woopie-do legal teams.

NDL

Indeed, they are master debaters.

No, but there again you know that - but still cling desperately on. Channel 4's legal team, who are far cleverer than you will have reviewed the show over and over, to ensure that it doesn't give reason for any legal action.

Peach, you are clearly a fool. Next you'll be saying that it's impossible for a politician or policeman to do anything corrupt, because "they're not allowed to".

The law is founded on ambiguity. If it wasn't, there would be no need for debate (like you seem to suggest in this case) and hence no need for lawyers.

Lawyers (politicians) thrive by enacting ambiguous law that ensures that they have work for as long as they like.

You are clearly a simpleton if you don't get this simple point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly goes through lawyers, without a doubt, everything does now.

So symbiotic.

Lawyer 1, always on the watch for an opportunity to advise a "victim" to sue thus begets:

Lawyer2, on watch to stay one step ahead of Lawyer 1.

Multiply in locust proportions.

Productive little b@ggers those lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose an appeal to natural justice would be met with howls of derision? :D

The law is an ass in respect of the regulation of the type of casual investment advice that is routinely peddled on these infomercials. And buyer beware is a lame argument when many of the buyers are fairly hapless and poorly prepared by the education system in separating the wheat from the bullsh!t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a much higher opinion of lawyers and legal teams' intelligence than I do. Most lawyers are merely skilled debaters and walking databases. Not much more to it.

I agree this thread is a non starter, but don't believe that just because Channel 4's legal team have looked at it that everything is fine.

How many times have we seen newspapers taken to task in court and losing? How many times have we seen financial firms fined by regulators and losing court cases over the wording in their advertising? All of which will have been given the once (twice, thrice?) over by these woopie-do legal teams.

NDL

I concur. I also confirm that lawyers are not very clever....not nowadays at least....and many of them are just plain dim....especially corporate lawyers, on the grounds that corporate law is actually extremely boring and attracts the dregs of the legal profession. They all have to "specialise" and their working knowledge of basic law is extremely scant.

The problem is duty of care: A television programme only owes a duty of care in terms of "decency" or "balance" or the reflection of society norms. Current society norm, however idiotic, is that property is ripe for exploitation......there is no moral imperative in such programmes. They are merely a reflection of private greed and the nationwide obsession with money for old rope.

Furthermore there is no contractual relationship between Phil and dear Kirsty and their TV clients, though the picture entirely changes with their ghastly enterprise finding over-priced pads for their nob clients.

We are getting the property TV we deserve. Millions of complete nit wits and brain dead philistines who formerly frequented betting shops now frequent the offices of financial "advisors" dressed in sports gear (they no longer wear actual clothes) sniffing around for further profit-for-no-work opportunites in a saturated market. I hope they all go spectacularly bankrupt.

Kind Regards,

VP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they will simply cite this as a form of 'entertainment'.

if you look at the schedule of this program its probably booked as LE.

its not a public service, nor even a news service. at no point do they suggest you go and buy one. they are more subtle and are only offering 'serving suggestions'.

also it would have been vetted,. no doubt about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they will simply cite this as a form of 'entertainment'.

if you look at the schedule of this program its probably booked as LE.

its not a public service, nor even a news service. at no point do they suggest you go and buy one. they are more subtle and are only offering 'serving suggestions'.

also it would have been vetted,. no doubt about that.

RFD

You know your stuff - any possible litigation would be met with the "entertainment" argument nowhere during the programme are you instructed - only (serving) suggestions are made

Similarly BBC's Tv chefs that use raw eggs in recipes - cooking programmes are classed as "Art" and as such are not vocationally instructional - they only suggest what is "avant garde".......

CS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but there again you know that - but still cling desperately on. Channel 4's legal team, who are far cleverer than you will have reviewed the show over and over, to ensure that it doesn't give reason for any legal action.

:lol::lol::lol:

Oh this post really cheered me up. You could be on Little Britain, mate... Are you a laydeeeee per chance?

The naive assumptions of some bulls on this site never ceases to amaze me! Pray tell - how do you know that Ch4 lawyers are more intelligent than the poster that you so desperately attack? Do you have any clue as to what he/ she does for a living? Could you please provide some evidence that Ch4 lawyers review progs such as these?

No thought not... :rolleyes::rolleyes: Never heard of misrepresentation of goods have you? Duh!

But the poster is probably not some sad and thick "johnny come lately" BTL mis-investor like yourself.

I love the diversity of this site - we welcome special needs posters on an equal footing as everyone else. Who else would choose a sign-in name that looks like an @rse... other than an @rse? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who takes advice from a tv program as their sole reason for property buying pretty much deserves to lose money. No sane person would think that was a reasonable excuse.

Mind you i'd have said the same about all these dodgy whiplash ambulance chasing claims 10 years ago...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who takes advice from a tv program as their sole reason for property buying pretty much deserves to lose money. No sane person would think that was a reasonable excuse.

Too right.

Can I sue the House Doctor if I paint my house magnolia and it still doesn't sell?

Can I sue HPC if I STR and prices don't crash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm nitpicking, but this was on C4 :rolleyes:

It applies accross the industry, especially to C4 they are merely publishers and content is produced by independent production companies, all the more reason why lawyers have to ensure it's fit for broadcast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 332 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.