Alan H wrote:Alternatively, your cases are outliers. If and when you can provide evidence that they are not, I can consider changing my neutral position.
In any normal distribution the number of cases I have come across is highly unlikely to be outliers. Nor do I consider your position to be neutral.
We can ponder all we like, but we cannot conclude something that the evidence does not say.
I have come across sufficient cases in my professional life which convince me of the case. I am disappointed you take such a challenging attitude to such a statement, but that's up to you.
Why dismiss the evidence I claim? Even if it is not enough to be certain, it should lead you to query the alternative you seem to be supporting.[/quote]You're missing the point Nick. I'm not dismissing the evidence you say you have - what I am dismissing is your unfounded extrapolation. However, if you can provide evidence that it can be extrapolated, then it can be examined.[/quote]If, in a sample of cases, one finds certain consistencies, then one is entitled to draw conclusions, to varying degrees of certainty. Standard sampling technique.
There would be all sorts of reasons to start from a working hypothesis that an organisation, whose sole reason for existence was to make money for its shareholders and whose continued existence depended on being successful at fulfilling that one aim, would do what it could to protect and maximise that money.
I don't see that that works, because, by the same token, they would not as a matter of policy engage in cheating their clients becuase of the dangers which have now been shown to be inherent.
However, even if they did argue with the regulator, I find it extraordinary that the regulator would increase the fines just because they did!
Extraordinary it may be, but banker bashing seems to be a national sport, these days. If they banks ran arouund claiming that the regulator was wrong, I have no doubt at all that the regulator would increase the size of the fines to "encourage them not to", and to "change their culture" and such like.
Yes, and a well-deserved sport it is too.
Not such a neutral stance after all!
And are you implying that the banks just rolled over when the regulator came calling - or did they try to argue their case anyway?
So, did they just roll over or did they try to fight it?
They arguded their corner, but stoppedonce the decision as to how to assess the claims had been made by the regulator. They did not have the legal capacity to challenge them further, nor would it have been in their interests to try to do so after that point.
I'd love to believe you, Nick, but excuse me from being skeptical until I can see some definitive evidence.
I hope you will accept my word for the cases I have come across. Why are you skeptical of the claims I have made about the claimants? (That some see the PPI scandal as a way to get some money out of the banks.)
I'm not sure how I can say this any more plainly: I don't not believe what you say about your personal experience; it's just that you have not managed to justify extrapolating it to what might have happened nationwide!
Then I suggest you acquaint yourself with sampling techniques.
(I'm not saying that the banks have nothing to answer for; they do. But I am claiming that the claims have been exaggerated.)
Yet we still have no good evidence to believe that!
So what is wrong with the reasons I have given? Do you understand the differences between a court decision and the decision of the regulator?
What, it seems to me, you are entitled to claim given the evidence you say you have, is that some cases have been awarded more than you believe they should have been entitled to. For the sake of argument, let's say that you are talking about five cases out of ten. It is entirely possible that those are the only five cases that have - in your opinion - been overpaid.
Statistically vanishingly unlikely, and my knowledge extends to hundreds of cases, which makes it even less likely.
Perhaps that's not likely and you may be right, but there are no grounds for assuming anything about the total population of complaints.
Yes, there are. (well, drawing conclusions, rather than making assumptions).
You cannot say that because 50% of the ten cases you have personal knowledge of were given excessive payouts, that 50% of all (however many thousands there are) are equally excessive. You just do not have the data to support that, however likely you feel it may be.
My sample size is much bigger, and (as I think you know anyway) one can draw conclusions, to varying degrees of certainty. Indeed if one does not, then there is not much use for sampling at all, is there?