So what constitutes 'selling?'

anglepoise

I took out a Sun Alliance policy in 1990.
It was recommended by my employer at the time - a bank.
When I complained I was told that the bank were the appointed rep and would be dealing with the complaint.
Some 10 months later the bank has rejected my complaint.
Their reason is they claim that they didn't sell the policy to me because they took no commission - it was refunded to me in the form of reduced premiums.
They say they merely provided me with a policy and I made an 'informed decision'.
So I am puzzled about who did 'sell' me this policy.
It was offered to me (and my wife) as the only option to repay a staff mortgage.
No alternatives were discussed, but a likely 'tax fee bonus' was.
I know there is no factfind because my wife never came into the office to discuss any of this.
I've asked the ex-employer for evidence to contradict my claims, so pending their reply, what do people think?

As the thread title suggests, I'm a little puzzled by this idea that no-one is responsible for selling this policy to us.

EdInvestor

It was offered to me (and my wife) as the only option to repay a staff mortgage

Most "in-house" endowments appear to have been done on an "execution only" basis, where there was no advice.Thus you can't complain.

dunstonh

Staff and family of financial services companies get less protection than the average consumer. If you want the protection, you dont use the company you are attached to basically. Of course, you wont get it as cheap either.

anglepoise

EdInvestor wrote:

Most "in-house" endowments appear to have been done on an "execution only" basis, where there was no advice.Thus you can't complain.

ok

so in that case shouldn't there be a record to that effect, signed by me, that says just this?

and if there isn't (and I know there isn't) where does the onus of proof lie?

moreover, I say I WAS advised. my word against theirs, or do they need to prove otherwise?

anglepoise

dunstonh wrote:

Staff and family of financial services companies get less protection than the average consumer. If you want the protection, you dont use the company you are attached to basically. Of course, you wont get it as cheap either.

that makes sense if you accept the assumption that staff are better informed

that's clearly ludicrous, since staff in a large organisation may have nothing to do with products

where is this 'less protection' defined in law?

Robert_Sterling_3

What constitutes selling? ....

.... providing goods or a service for payment .....

dunstonh

that makes sense if you accept the assumption that staff are better informed

that's clearly ludicrous, since staff in a large organisation may have nothing to do with products

where is this 'less protection' defined in law?

I used to work for bank and staff had the option of full advice on client terms or discounted products. What usually happened was the staff member would get unofficial advice, off the record and buy the product on discount terms. Don't know if that was the case for you and how its recorded.

If you cannot produce a reason why letter or copy factfind or anything that indicates you got advice, then its unlikely the provider is either.

Most FSA rules are guidelines which have not been tested in a court of law. However, the FSA can stop you trading and so you tend to follow those guidelines.

anglepoise

Robert_Sterling wrote:

What constitutes selling? ....

.... providing goods or a service for payment .....

then if my employer didn't charge me, and my premiums were discounted by Sun Alliance, since I have paid them monthly contributions, the surely Sun Alliance sold the policy?

the other interesting fact is that Scottish Amicable have paid compensation on a policy taken out under identical circumstances just 2 years later

dunstonh

then if my employer didn't charge me, and my premiums were discounted by Sun Alliance, since I have paid them monthly contributions, the surely Sun Alliance sold the policy?

And whom did you speak to from Sun Alliance that gave you advice?

You are not complaining about the sale of the product. You are complaining about the advice that led to that.

the other interesting fact is that Scottish Amicable have paid compensation on a policy taken out under identical circumstances just 2 years later

Probably not identical circumstances. Different salesforces would handle staff differently. Maybe they wouldnt allow direct offer or execution only sales and everyone was treated as being done on the advice process.

To be honest, it all depends on the advising company and the set up you had with the employer at that time. There would have been a number of ways for them to do it back then without giving advice. In this case, unless you can say you were giving advice and by whom and when and ideally prove that with the documentation, then its going to be hard for you to prove your case.

FOSman

anglepoise wrote:

I took out a Sun Alliance policy in 1990.
It was recommended by my employer at the time - a bank.
When I complained I was told that the bank were the appointed rep and would be dealing with the complaint.
Some 10 months later the bank has rejected my complaint.
Their reason is they claim that they didn't sell the policy to me because they took no commission - it was refunded to me in the form of reduced premiums.
They say they merely provided me with a policy and I made an 'informed decision'.
So I am puzzled about who did 'sell' me this policy.
It was offered to me (and my wife) as the only option to repay a staff mortgage.
No alternatives were discussed, but a likely 'tax fee bonus' was.
I know there is no factfind because my wife never came into the office to discuss any of this.
I've asked the ex-employer for evidence to contradict my claims, so pending their reply, what do people think?

As the thread title suggests, I'm a little puzzled by this idea that no-one is responsible for selling this policy to us.

That’s a crap argument. :mad: Take the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

For the sale to have been deemed execution only, you would have needed to walk into that office and ask for exactly what you got, which includes target amounts, assumed rates of return, life company and so on....

If they provided any advice on any of the above, then they gave you advice and are totally liable, regardless if they received any commission.

Did you sign an execution only statement?? I bet not. The fact find issue is not important. Most places didn't use them until post 1994. Even if you can produce an illustration given by them at the time, then that can be see as receiving advice.

Unless you had previous endowment policies and other investments, it is very unlikely for a person to arrange one of these products on execution only.

In this instance, they need to show that they either didn't give advice (by producing an execution only statement), or show that the advice given and the product sold was suitable for your needs at the time.

dunstonh

FOSMAN, nice to see you post again.

Back in my banking days, if a staff member wanted advice, they got it but got full retail charging. If they wanted to do it with discount, they just sent the application in and it was set up from there. No selling agent code was on the app so it could never be linked to anyone. In reality, the staff did ask questions and got illustrations but nothing was ever produced to show it was an advice process. Equally, nothing produced to show it was execution only. I believe they treated it as direct offer. Obviously, its bending the rules but with no documentary evidence either way, it could be hard to prove anything.

How would you view that? It could be that is how anglepoise is being treated.