01606595892

I understand that this dialling system is in actual fact under the control of an oligarchy of sea otters, all of which are rather cruelly allergic to saltwater...

i can guarantee i wnt b gettin any more calls from u as i have had my number changed

The staff that work for this organisation just do not get the point of every ones complaint. No one that you canvass has actually asked for you to repeatedly phone him or her. Yes they may have entered competition or gave a possible interest in insurance services on a survey. That does not under any circumstance gives you any right to harass them.
This should be the prospective that you should use.
One call that results in a conversation with a prospective customer from Financial Connexions ltd should be the maximum number that you make. If the prospective customer is interested then offer your services. They may or may not become a customer. That depends on your staffs’ sales ability to match your products or services to the prospective customer needs. If the prospective customer is not interested you ought not to make any more telephone calls to them. Under no circumstances should repeated silent calls ever be made via auto dialers.
Financial Connexions ltd marketing policy far from benefiting them actually is distressing potential customers. The very people that you need to become customers so you can earn commission from the insurance companies that you represent. A company that has more people hating them then becoming customers has serious long-term problems. The probable result is that it ceases trading at some stage on the future.
I note that no one from this company has ever offered an explanation why you have not submitting your annual accounts at companies’ house. This shows that you our both unethical in the way you process person data and show total contempt for the laws of the land, in relation to company law. Please see this link http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ccbcda0aa0e ... c05/compdetails

I very much look forward to hearing from more employees of Financial Connexion Ltd and their justifications for acting in a self-destructive manner that in turn causes distress to many people. May I offer you a tag line for your advertising gives the correct image of your repugnant company. ‘Liked by thousands hated by Millions’ ( Death Race 2000.)

First - can we please stick to the topic and refrain from the banal criticism of those whose spelling is less than perfect? It does nothing for anyone's credibility to waste space doing that. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, regardless of their spelling capabilities, or lack thereof.

Second - I might have a result. I filled in a complaint form for TPS as I am a member. It is now a month since that number last tried to call me.

Third - Barclay's Bank has been fined the maximum penalty for use of an auto-dialler. The judge said he would have given a bigger fine if the law had allowed it. Let's hope Amanico have heard about this and decided to replace their auto-dialler with a real person for every call. Then all you have to do is ask to speak with a supervisor and ask that person for your name to be removed. From earlier posts, that is all you need to do.

No it isn't, as they put all their not interests back in and call them again when they are short on data. They just leave the angry ones till last

Hi Snitch
Very interesting post. If I am phoned again by this company I will insist that they produce the original data that they used to contact me and then ask them to prove were the second data came from. Under data protection act laws they will have to provide this information. If not they could face a fine.
I also read the article about Barclays bank fine that Mike shared with us; I do hope that this sets a president for other court cases. I have no doubt that this repugnant company will be punish in the not to distant future.
I give a challenge to financial connections or one of your other companies’ names, to phone me again if you dare! You should be able to trace whom I am from your tapes. You have enough clues; I often use the word repugnant and speak about the police. Whom I know has spoken to with company directors in the recent past, concerning your despicable behaviour.
Does anyone know who the company sectary is for this company? They are personally responsible for the company’s actions and adhering to company law. Even if they resign this responsibility stays with them for six years. So that is any offences that the company committed in relation to company law that has happened in the six years before the date of resignation. They will be personally liable for .I would like to find out who he or she is and open discussion with him concerning their company’s behaviour.

Hello Bitter snitch, Interesting you choose to bite the hand that fed you, I've a feeling I know which low lifed, non earner you are. Perhaps you should consider a job @ Mcdonalds seeing as nobody actually likes you here at Amanico.

Fascinating. Slowly, the truth drips out, either from aMANICo types who don't realise what they are admitting, or from aMANICo employees who know perfectly well what they are revealing.

And as for this from AMANICo "employee": "I've a feeling I know which low lifed, non earner you are."

Tee hee and ho ho. You haven't a clue who this informant is. You treat your employees like [***], then expect them to be loyal (or, at least, silent). But when this comes to court, they'll have to hire a bus to bring the witnesses, and a bulk whistle provider for the whistleblowers.

Oh and by the way Russell: whilst drinking cocktails no doubt makes you feel very grown up and sophisticated, I'd stick to alcopops in your case. And your "absence" didn't last very long, did it?

The Barclays judgement is indeed interesting. Anyone who gets a silent call from aMANICo should immediately complain. A fine of £50k might concentrate their minds.

Still working through the messages since I got back from LA, this one (from a "graduate") ie "Still laffin at Bob" is particularly entertaining:

"bob I don't get paid to spell. Microsoft Word does.
I have been honourable and thuthful throughout.
Bob, dont be so nieve......"

Very interesting. "Throughout" what? Are you suggesting / admitting that you have been posting here under another name? And what name might that be? No prizes for guesses. Further, perhaps you should change your spellchecker -"honourable and thuthful"? or (preferably) improve your qualifications in English. I understand that "nieve" is Spanish for "snow" incidentally. No charge for this information.

Fascinated? What's your motivation "Bob the failed psychoanalyst”? Which of your parents do you blame… your father? Why the impetuous interest for Richard? I can answer that one for you; he is of a weaker mind thus boosting your own self-esteem & self-righteousness. So please pray tell your incentives.

Russell even.

But Amanico employee you weren't that nasty to me when I sat next to you were you? You'd be surprised who I am, sometimes the bitterest of people are the ones who appear to be the nicest ...... Keeping it in the family hahahahaha

Snitch, you’d like to think you’re part of a family, however, you’re a failure.

Waiting for Bob (assumed name).

you should make your mind up!! When i said family you soon picked up on the implication. had your nose pushed out recently so busy trying to suck up as usual haha doesn't get you too far though does it?

(yawn)

Would Bob (stage name) care to reply?

I have popped onto this site about 4 or 5 times to see your responses to one another, bob is great and snitch gotta respect u mate

and as for you amanico employee why not just use your own name?
you're very defensive of amanico and you seem quite proud of yourself in doing so, why not just put ur name to it?


iv got another lil question too why have amanico changed their name yet again?????

"Why the impetuous interest for Richard? I can answer that one for you; he is of a weaker mind"

"Impetuous" is a rather odd adjective to use here. Perhaps you should look it up. All of my messages here have been carefully considered. And who is "Richard"? If you mean "Russell", I'd be bound to agree with your estimation of him, but you might like to compare notes with him when he "returns" from "Greece" with his "girl friend" (hoping he hasn't had too many "cocktails").

You enquired about my "incentives". Again, I suspect you have the wrong word, and you probably meant "motivations". Most people would say the Oxford is the best dictionary, but I must admit to a certain fondness for the idiosyncracies of Chambers. I made my motivations perfectly clear, as long ago as August 26, and therefore I might be permitted to quote myself:

"So far as I am concerned, this is an outfit [aMANICo] which hopes to make significant profits by using underhand methods to obtain names and phone numbers, and underhand methods to communicate with those they phone. I hope I have made serious inroads into that particular business model. I will continue to do so."

So long, bumsucker.

And to Alexandra: good questions all, but don't expect answers. Regarding the change of name, I could not possibly speculate. What I can say, however, is that any outfit with a good name and a good reputation would usually be quite reluctant to change its name, thereby risking loss of recognition and good will. Draw your own conclusions.

No doubt "Russell", "Not a friend of Bob", "Amanico employee" and others who tend to come - and go - here, and who sound remarkably similar (it must be the induction programme) will be able to supply further and detailed responses. Don't hold your breath.

So Bob, once again your entire argument stems from improper use of the English language.  It is interesting to note that you have not picked up on mistakes made by people slagging off Amanico, can you explain why this is?  I refer you to Rob and Alexandra's recent posts, although as you seem to subject every post to rigorous scrutiny, I am sure you are already aware of the errors they have made, yes?

"Russell"

How unexpected to find you here again so soon, given your message of 1 September: "Maybe I'll check back in a couple of months". Cynical folks might suggest that you were never away, but just posted under pseudos. Whilst that may or may not be generally true, I think we can all excuse you of posting as "Amanico Employee". That's the one who described you as being "of weaker mind". I could, of course, nit pick and enquire "weaker than what (or whom?)" but I guess we all got the general drift, so no harm done.

A word of advice: when even people who agree with you think you are weak minded, it's probably time to quit.

Hoping you had a lovely holiday in Greece (though nobody seems to have noticed your absence).

Kalinychta, malakas.

To the one who worked it out: very clever! I wouldn't ever have thought of that.

And to the other aMANICo slaves: thanks for your messages. I do my best!