Show reviews that mention
pissed consumer’s consumer’s terms lvp record statements post finds march record comments urls
Filter review
1.3
Details
What can I say Sam Instone called me went through all my issues complaints, agreed it had not been dealt with in the best way, offered me compensation which i was happy to accept, and made good on his word, So i would say to any persons having any issues with this...
View full review
1 comment
Anonymous
#1541469

Well he didn't compensate me for my losses

ID
#1284128 Review #1284128 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Reason of review
resolved issue
1.0
Details
BEWARE THIS COMPANY AES INTERNATIONAL TAKES YOUR MONEY AND CHARGES YOU VAT AGAINST CHARGES WHEN THEY SHOULD NOT. ALSO, THEY DO NOT LOOK AFTER YOUR POLICY JUST TAKE MONEY. AND MOVE YOU TO A DIFFERENT JURISDICTION TO ESCAPE THE UK OMBUDSMAN DO NOT TRADE WITH THEM DO NOT...
View full review
4 comments
Anonymous
#1503840

Being the adviser mentioned in this complaint and having worked in financial services for 15 years and never having a complaint held against me during that time (UK FCA register can be checked to confirm the same) I feel compelled to post my comments.This client’s primary complaint related to issues concerning his pension after the period in which I arranged the initial admin (first couple of months) thus I had no involvement in the management of his policy after this initial stage, though I understand that his main complaint was in relation to VAT charged against fees.However, a secondary issue emerged in relation to the change of AES branch for his policy from the UK to one of our other EU branches in Poland (as a consequence of a change of adviser who was based in Poland), of which the client felt wasn’t made clear.As the advice provided, within AES, is of the exact same standard whether it emanates from the UK, Poland, UAE or anywhere else, and as this client wasn’t a resident of the UK himself, it wasn’t immediately obvious to me/us at the time (we’ve changed our protocol since) that a ‘flag’ needed to be raised to signal a change in jurisdiction, for his policy, between EU branches - as the advice provided is the same irrespective of branch location.As per this client’s latest post, really happy to see that this client’s complaint has now been resolved to his satisfaction.

View more comments
ID
#1278902 Review #1278902 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Reason of review
Poor customer service
Loss
$25000
Preferred solution
Let the company propose a solution
Aes International - Rupert Bastick - History repeating itself - how can this happen?
Rupert Bastick was the owner, and director of a UK financial services company that went Bankrupt in October 2010. See attached. He now appears again as a director of this new, international mortgage brokerage, again, out of Exeter. For the last 3 -4 years he has been...
View full review
ID
#1128728 Review #1128728 is a subjective opinion of poster.
I lost to date $111,000 on an initial $160,000 Generali Vision Plan sold to me by an inept John Viney AES advisor. At the time I signed up I was working in Iraq worth little internet access so it was not clear what I was signing up to and difficult to research. This...
View full review
7 comments
Anonymous
#1420726

Unsurprising. AES International sells endowment savings plans with up front commission. Anybody buying a Genarali policy from AES International will lose first 2 years premiums to AES International commission.

View more comments
Resolved
ID
#950158 Review #950158 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Location
Leidschendam, South Holland
Service
Aes International Generali Worldwide Vision Savings Plan
Reason of review
Poor customer service
Loss
$111000
Preferred solution
Full refund
I recently read on the {{{Redacted}}} and article whose headline screamed - "How do they get away with it..." The following text is from an advertising promotion in the public domain placed by their head of recruitment, on N Eaton: Locations: Middle East – Dubai ...
View full review
8 comments
Anonymous
#1141306

*NOTICE OF COMPLAINT*

Please take notice that Complainant has initiated a Complaint against this Post due to alleged violations of Pissed Consumer’s Terms of Use (http://www.pissedconsumer.com/tos.txt) pursuant to Pissed Consumer’s Legitimacy Verification Program. To receive a copy of the Complaint send an email that includes the review number for this Post to lvp@pissedconsumer.com requesting a copy.

You, the Poster, have a right to respond to the Complaint to establish the truth of the Post’s statements. If you intend to respond, you have 20 days from the date this Notice was posted to answer the Complaint. The Answer Form (https://s3.amazonaws.com/pissedconsumer/legal/LVP+Answer+Form.pdf) must be submitted to lvp@pissedconsumer.com within 20 days of this Notice being posted. Failure to submit an Answer within 20 days waives your right to participate in the Legitimacy Verification Program as to this particular Complaint.

All Legitimacy Verification Program disputes are decided by an independent attorney who is not an employee of Pissed Consumer and whose firm has contracted with Pissed Consumer to provide attorneys who will serve as Third-Party Neutrals in conformity with the rules of the Legitimacy Verification Program.

Pissed Consumer WILL NOT reveal your identity or email address to Complainant without your express consent or pursuant to a subpoena or court order.

For more information regarding the Legitimacy Verification Program, please refer to the program’s rules found at http://www.pissedconsumer.com/static/legitimacy-verification-program-rules-and-conditions.html.

LVP ID: 16-v0010.

View more comments
ID
#453772 Review #453772 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Location
Guildford, England
Loss
$1

Your trust is our top priority

  • 100% user-generated content
  • Professional automated and live moderation
  • Zero tolerance for fake reviews
  • Equal Opportunity and Protection
  • Verified content

For more information about PissedConsumer check out our Blog article

http://{{{Redacted}}}-nordic.com/ This is the website of {{{Redacted}}} Nordic and from it comes the following: {{{Redacted}}}Nordic At {{{Redacted}}} Nordic we specialise in delivering Scandinavian-based clients bespoke, independent financial advice. This from a...
View full review
2 comments
Anonymous
#1420727

No service at AES International. Flog the savings plan, collect the commission and don't turn up ever again. Tens of thousands of pounds lost to commission i reckon.

View more comments
ID
#443749 Review #443749 is a subjective opinion of poster.

AES International - Financial Service Review

On the website of the Capital Markets Authority in Uganda is a public notice. This states that the public should not deal with anyone selling offshore funds and investment plans in the country, and those persons doing so would not be protected by relevant Uganda legislation. Thats clear. Why, then do {{{Redacted}}} have an adviser operating in the country - one Mr Niekerk - who is openly promoting and marketing his services in Kampala and also via Youtube / Twitter and other sources?? If you look behind the gloss of the {{{Redacted}}} website, the flowery language used and material you can find elsewhere, you may be surprised by what you see. Everything stated above is in the public domain. The regulator has been informed. ------------------------------------------------ /> LVP CASE ID 16-V0010 – DECISION SUMMARY On March 30, 2016, Complainant submitted a complaint in accordance with the Legitimacy Verification Program (“LVP”). The complaint alleged posts # 308709, 370884, 437762, 440080, 443749, and 453772 (the “Posts”) contained statements in violation of Pissed Consumer’s Terms of Use. The Posts’ authors (“Posters”) were offered an opportunity to respond to the complaint, as provided in LVP Rule 9, but each failed to do so. Thus, the Posts and the supplemental information provided by Complainant’s general counsel constitute the LVP Record. Having considered the LVP Record, the Third Party Neutral finds and holds as follows: It is more likely than not that the statements in each of the Posts are defamatory, untruthful and inaccurate and, therefore, violate Pissed Consumer’s Terms of Use. Accordingly, Complainant’s name should be removed from each post at issue, including in all comments to the Posts, and the URLs should be changed to remove reference to the Complainant. Dated: May 13, 2016
View full review
5 comments
Anonymous
#1141304

*NOTICE OF COMPLAINT*

Please take notice that Complainant has initiated a Complaint against this Post due to alleged violations of Pissed Consumer’s Terms of Use (http://www.pissedconsumer.com/tos.txt) pursuant to Pissed Consumer’s Legitimacy Verification Program. To receive a copy of the Complaint send an email that includes the review number for this Post to lvp@pissedconsumer.com requesting a copy.

You, the Poster, have a right to respond to the Complaint to establish the truth of the Post’s statements. If you intend to respond, you have 20 days from the date this Notice was posted to answer the Complaint. The Answer Form (https://s3.amazonaws.com/pissedconsumer/legal/LVP+Answer+Form.pdf) must be submitted to lvp@pissedconsumer.com within 20 days of this Notice being posted. Failure to submit an Answer within 20 days waives your right to participate in the Legitimacy Verification Program as to this particular Complaint.

All Legitimacy Verification Program disputes are decided by an independent attorney who is not an employee of Pissed Consumer and whose firm has contracted with Pissed Consumer to provide attorneys who will serve as Third-Party Neutrals in conformity with the rules of the Legitimacy Verification Program.

Pissed Consumer WILL NOT reveal your identity or email address to Complainant without your express consent or pursuant to a subpoena or court order.

For more information regarding the Legitimacy Verification Program, please refer to the program’s rules found at http://www.pissedconsumer.com/static/legitimacy-verification-program-rules-and-conditions.html.

LVP ID: 16-v0010.

Anonymous
#712092

@ odd thing to post - you are right about the qualification standards. this is one or many comments made by {{{Redacted}}} which is not entirely accurate. Another is the fact they are a "well-regulated company" and this is the point of this posting.

@ the man - the Act provide a definition of 'unit' but the is silent on its application throughout the rest of the text. AES have a platform product which may fall under the definition of 'unit' The regulator was therefore contacted and this query raised to see if the 'platform' is caught by the Act. However your posting has got me thinking so I have read the Insurance Regulations Act.

This:

a. requires all brokers who sells life insurance to be duly authorised and

b. Is silent on whether individuals who are working alone can be authorised or whether authorisation ca only be applied to legal or corporate bodies.

Further investigation leads to the quote - "life cover may include investments depending on the structure of the product"

Also a review of the Uganda Assoc of Ins Brokers - www.uaib.org - shows that a number of firms are properly authorised under the Insurance Act to sell life and pension products.

Either way AES have some serious questions to answer.....

I am not a ex-employee of the company (or an ex-IFA) but there is an increasing body within the industry who are trying to take action against blantant misrepresentation, especially fom those firms who seek to hold the moral high ground.

Awards? Not is a position to comment, that is one for the awards panel.

@the man - you will find that the message behind my postings is sincere and the comments I have made worthy of investigation. there is no mud slinging, name calling or anything similar. You have proved the point of many business leaders that those who come onto pissed consumer to rant, rave, use juvenile icons in their comments are really only suitable to have their views disregarded.

I will make no further comment on this site

Anonymous
#711637

@ The Man

I just had a look at the links you posted. Have you seen the comments on the Economist article?

There appears to be a little confusion as to the qualification requirements needed. On the one hand the article states that the advisers must meet UK qualification standards and yet the comments suggest that that is not the case.

What are the qualification requirements? If they are not at UK standards, then someone needs to talk to the Economist and correct this error.

And, what on earth does it matter what the UK rules are or what some UK compliance officer says? Uganda decides what is suitable for Uganda. :roll

Anonymous
#708706

hahaha, The Truth Spreader, mmm, it must be a new kind of "Super hero" because I’ve never seen him in any of the SmallVille episodes...

After reading your post (good thing you didn't put your name down ! lol) ,the "I am a TOOL" spot is however still open for auditions, sounds like they were waiting just for you to come along and we have to all concur...a perfect match. :grin

Actually, the poster can be your sidekick...aka, the freaky stalker or something.

Can you both still be reached at *** HQ...what was it again?? oh yes: i_am_a_tool@iwishiwasnotadropoutifa.com ?

This is the sandbox for the big children, you're clearly out of your league bucko...are you like 5 ??

Have you bothered reading the act properly and interpreting the act? "Doh...what is an act?" you ask? Well, not quite the same as the comedy act your portraying here, that I can assure you, but let's try get down to your level.

Offshore adviser activities can be "limited" to or construed as advising on the sale of insurance products. I have it on good authority that ALL {{{Redacted}}} business must be processed through {{{Redacted}}}’ London office, where they have an active and alert UK compliance function, so an advisor cannot provide advice other than in relation to such products.

Turning now to the analysis and the Act: in this regard, section 33 of the Act seems irrelevant. That section prohibits acting as an investment representative (i.e.: in broad terms assisting an investment adviser) without a licence. The advisor in this case is not doing so, f& rom what I can tell your friend in Uganda seems to work alone? :eek

Section 32 of the Act prohibits a person acting as an investment adviser in Uganda without him/ her having the appropriate licence. “Investment adviser” is tightly defined under section 1(t) of the Act. Within that section, subsection (iii) concerns the “management of a portfolio of securities”. As indicated above, it can strongly be argued that this is not what he does. His actions would then be limited to advice on insurance products, not so? :x

Subsections (i) and (ii) (and indeed (iii)) of subsection 1(t) state that being an investment adviser means (inter alia) carrying on a business of advising concerning securities (and therefore not any other product). “Securities” are themselves tightly defined under section 1(hh) of the Act. They include government-issued stock (etc.), debentures, stocks, shares (etc.) issued by a corporate body, rights warrants, options and futures, and instruments commonly known as securities. he could easily claim that NONE of these descriptions appears to fit the products that the he advises on, which are (to iterate) insurance products. :p

Dude again, are you SURE you're not 5? Just way, it will explain everything.

I wonder how they came by all of these...? (copied from an online post)

Latest awards from Virgin's SIR Richard Branson: http://goo.gl/VKZ1q

? The field-marshal of finance: http://goo.gl/vF1Y9A (The Economist)

? UK Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year announced http://goo.gl/QacFb

? Bringing out the BIG GUNS: http://www.international-adviser.com/profiles-and-analysis/profiles/bringing-out-the-big-guns

? ADVISORS: The good, the bad and the downright ugly ! http://www.expatmoneychannel.com/content/ifas-good-bad-and-downright-ugly

? Some older news but good history: http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/new-model-adviser-profile-gunning-for-bad-practice/a357852

? Our International awards: http://goo.gl/JdRzh and http://goo.gl/6WuQt

C'mooooooon, you're 5 !!! :) I just KNEW it !! lol :zzz

Anonymous
#704627

I am grateful for being pointed in the direction of a comment from the adviser named above which shows the contemptuous attitude {{{Redacted}}} appear to have toward being properly regulated in all countries where they operate.

"Being regulated by a licensing authority is a joke........"

This is a direct quote.

And for the joker who thinks this is *** then refer to the following link - http://www.cmauganda.co.ug/legalcompliance/shore-fund-and-investment-plans.

This posting does not contain lies, innuendo, slander or anything similar. It is the truth and is posted because the lies and misrepresentation MUST STOP in the offshore financial services industry.

The regulator has been informed and more truthful, verifiable comments will follow.

View more comments (4)
ID
#440080 Review #440080 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Location
Guildford, England

AES International - Advisers Review

If, after reading the {{{Redacted}}} website you are considering meeting one of their advisers, ask yourself the following: 1. Why do they have new advisers in Mexico without a license to operate there? 2. Why do they have advisers operating in Brazil without a license to operate there? 3. Why is the firm advertising for advisers to work in Saudi when no regulatory license is held? 4. Why, when the policy of the Central Bank of Bahrain specifically permits this, does the {{{Redacted}}} Dubai website clearly state they are servicing clients there? All of this information is in the public domain so if you are tempted into a meeting then do your research first. Look beyond the glossy image and you may be surprised by what you find..... More to follow More follows ________________________________________________ /> LVP CASE ID 16-V0010 – DECISION SUMMARY On March 30, 2016, Complainant submitted a complaint in accordance with the Legitimacy Verification Program (“LVP”). The complaint alleged posts # 308709, 370884, 437762, 440080, 443749, and 453772 (the “Posts”) contained statements in violation of Pissed Consumer’s Terms of Use. The Posts’ authors (“Posters”) were offered an opportunity to respond to the complaint, as provided in LVP Rule 9, but each failed to do so. Thus, the Posts and the supplemental information provided by Complainant’s general counsel constitute the LVP Record. Having considered the LVP Record, the Third Party Neutral finds and holds as follows: It is more likely than not that the statements in each of the Posts are defamatory, untruthful and inaccurate and, therefore, violate Pissed Consumer’s Terms of Use. Accordingly, Complainant’s name should be removed from each post at issue, including in all comments to the Posts, and the URLs should be changed to remove reference to the Complainant. Dated: May 13, 2016
View full review
2 comments
Anonymous
#1446599

From what I can see, AES are now one of the few ethical advisers around in Dubai. They do not sell long term savings plans and certainly their senior advisers are UK charted.

Anonymous
#1141307

*NOTICE OF COMPLAINT*

Please take notice that Complainant has initiated a Complaint against this Post due to alleged violations of Pissed Consumer’s Terms of Use (http://www.pissedconsumer.com/tos.txt) pursuant to Pissed Consumer’s Legitimacy Verification Program. To receive a copy of the Complaint send an email that includes the review number for this Post to lvp@pissedconsumer.com requesting a copy.

You, the Poster, have a right to respond to the Complaint to establish the truth of the Post’s statements. If you intend to respond, you have 20 days from the date this Notice was posted to answer the Complaint. The Answer Form (https://s3.amazonaws.com/pissedconsumer/legal/LVP+Answer+Form.pdf) must be submitted to lvp@pissedconsumer.com within 20 days of this Notice being posted. Failure to submit an Answer within 20 days waives your right to participate in the Legitimacy Verification Program as to this particular Complaint.

All Legitimacy Verification Program disputes are decided by an independent attorney who is not an employee of Pissed Consumer and whose firm has contracted with Pissed Consumer to provide attorneys who will serve as Third-Party Neutrals in conformity with the rules of the Legitimacy Verification Program.

Pissed Consumer WILL NOT reveal your identity or email address to Complainant without your express consent or pursuant to a subpoena or court order.

For more information regarding the Legitimacy Verification Program, please refer to the program’s rules found at http://www.pissedconsumer.com/static/legitimacy-verification-program-rules-and-conditions.html.

LVP ID: 16-v0010.

View more comments (1)
ID
#437762 Review #437762 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Don't bother with {{{Redacted}}} as they promote the hiring of failed, fired and untrustworthy advisors from other companies as a recruitment strategy. Test the next one that calls you by asking how long they have worked in this industry? Then ask how long they...
View full review
26 comments
Anonymous
#1446601

The comment on AES hiring failed financial advisers is way off the mark now.I have dealt with Mr Ritchie and he is super qualified and definitely did not offer me a long term servings plan. I had tried other advisers, namely Finsbury Associates and Holborne as well and both of these organizations had their advisers suggesting a 25 and 20 year Generali plan (may be they have a special deal on)Tom

View more comments
ID
#370884 Review #370884 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Location
Dubai, Dubai
Beware: DeVere Group is re-branding!! The new name is {{{Redacted}}}. {{{Redacted}}} has an ex *** from DeVere as Country Manager/ Private Client Adviser named Jonathan Wookey. He has last been seen working for DeVere when he visited me in Basel in Autumn 2011. I can...
View full review
13 comments
Anonymous
#1216383

Jonathan Wookey worked for approx 2 years at DeVere and continued to sell many expats very bad financial advise and products.

He fell out with DeVere and started to work for AES International as the Country Manager / Private Client Adviser, where he continued to scam expats and locals to gain commission ruthlessly.

He was made redundant in less than a year and dissapeared to Singapore to work for IFS (2 years).

He is back in Switzerland now and started his own Company as the 'CEO at Summit Wealth AG' (Zug).

Be cautious - he is back!

View more comments
ID
#308709 Review #308709 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Location
Zurich, Zurich

Compare Companies

Aes International
Aes International
10 reviews
1.3
VS
Globaleye
Globaleye
40 reviews
1.2
Compare Aes International vs Globaleye