I don't think it's that black and white. At the point that she was left holding the property, one could make a case for her position. But now that TIC have bought back the property at purchase price plus costs plus some, I think it's a bit rich to "maintain the rage".They are both wrong, but to Neil she's less wrong than them. So who do you put your support behind? The ignorant chick, or the people selling her the property at the inflated price?
If she'd made a heap of money, she'd be happy, as are (apparently) at least some other TIC clients. It sounds to me like the only thing TIC did wrong was have, amongst their portfolio of possible investments, some properties that under-performed, and Christine (unfortunately) chose one of those. TIC have now gone "above and beyond" in rectifying that, anyway.
What could TIC possibly have done to prevent this situation? Given that poorly performing investments are an inherent risk of investing, and that their commissions etc are fully disclosed, it seems that the only thing that TIC could have done was say "sorry, Christine, but you're too stupid and ignorant to invest with us"! Is that what Jenman would recommend they do in future?
I've never had anything to do with TIC and I don't plan to. I just think that people running legitimate businesses should be encouraged in this country. The service TIC provides may not be something that most SSers would want to use, but that doesn't mean that it's not a legitimate business. A poor-performing investment is not evidence of unethical business practice, bad faith, or excessive fees or anything shonky (necessarily); it's evidence that they're not 100% successful in their investment recommendations, and I don't know a person or organisation on the planet that can pick 100% winners.
Financial advisers don't cop anywhere near this level of flak when they recommend buying shares that go down the toilet - why are people promoting property apparently held to a different standard?