Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

defender_of_the_weak

Its quite clear that they are telling lies in the hope of finding a technicality that results in an upheld case rather than raising genuine reasons.

It is also true that some complaints departments lie to reject perfectly valid complaints. We have just had a claim partially rejected by FOS based on a complete set of lies by the complaints handlers of a major insurer.

dreamylittledream

MSNovice wrote: »

I,ve just started on this site and haven't read all the relevent info, so please excuse me if the info I need is somewhere I haven't seen yet.

However, I sold my endowments about 5 years ago as they were costing a lot with no hope of a decent payout.

Q1 Can I still pursue the companies for misselling?
Q2 I know that at least one of the Financial Companies we used to buy the endowment no longer exists (the broker, not the Insurance Company) does that matter?

1. Yes - but its dependant on when you first receievd 'red' warning letter on the policies performance.

2. If the company is defunct and the policy was sold after August 88 you'll probably have to go to the FSCS. Check their websire and you can find out if the company that sold the policy is 'in default'.

dreamylittledream

dunstonh wrote: »

There are a number of claims management companies. Some acting within the rules but some that do not. All some do is use the same template letter for everyone and send that in. About 5 minutes work in total and if successful they take 25% or whatever of the redress.

Whilst a decent claims management company may do more work and tailor the complaint, there appears to be more that use the template letter rather than a bespoke one. The complaints departments know the template letters from claims companies and do treat them differently to individual complaints. You cannot blame them either when you see the things they say. Its quite clear that they are telling lies in the hope of finding a technicality that results in an upheld case rather than raising genuine reasons.

It doesnt take long to run off your own complaint letter. it doesnt need to be war and peace and if you are successful then you get to keep all the redress and not pay a quarter of it to someone else.

This is patent rubbish given the majority of non CMC complaints are variations on the Which letter.

If a complaints department recieved a complaint about an investment being unsuitable they have to demonstrate the the advice was suitable. The language the complaint is couched in is irrelevant for consideration of the validity of the complaint. Tiner and indeed DISP were fairly clear on this.

The majority of assessment of a complaint is done through the complainants answers on a questionaire, not the complaint letter itself.

The majority of value a CMC can provide is checking redress is performed correctly (offers are not always performed correctly, even if guidance has been allegedly followed) and making representation to the Ombudsman.

Whether this service is worth 25% of the overall compensation is a question for the prospective client, using a CMC will not remove all the 'work' in making a complaint but they can undoubtedly add value (providing you use a decent firm of course!).

sheilavw

Hi...Im new to this forum. I wonder if anyone can give me some info? We moved to our present property in December 1988. We were and still are with the Nat West who at the time recommended a Standard Life endowment to fund the difference. However, our solicitor who we had dealt with for our first house 6 years before recommended a Norwich Union low cost endowment which we took out and is still running. At the end of 06 we received a red alert. After much deliberation this summer we decided to look into this and contacted Norwich Union by letter highlighting our concerns. They replied that we must take it up with the firm of solictors who advised us and received the commission on the policy. The solictor who advised us is retired now, the firm is still trading under different name, in a new building. We wrote to them for info on our file etc. They wrote back confirming they were the succcessors of this solicitors and as such responsible and asked for various infor, like copy of policy, was the property our current property, who advised us at the branch, who our mortgage was with etc. We sent all info and a month later had a letter back saying they had contacted the solicitor and he is adamant that he never ever sold an endowment policy so they refused to accept any liability. They also said that as the policy doesnt mature until 2013 we are premature with our request. I contacted Norwich Union, they confirmed that we are not premature, we must act now (2nd red arrived this week) and they have now sent me a letter confirming that the solicitors did sell me policy, the amount of commission they were paid, and the date they paid it. I rang the solicitor and he said if I can get proof send it and he will look at it. I distinctly remember the solictor joking that we could have a cruise with the surplus,and us being in our 20s laughing and saying perhaps we would buy a car. What are our chances of success? Can they still deny liability with info I have sent them? Any info would be appreciated

dunstonh

At the end of 06 we received a red alert. After much deliberation this summer we decided to look into this and contacted Norwich Union by letter highlighting our concerns.

NU forced all their endowments into Red that had a shortfall to allow the timebar clock to start ticking. It doesnt mean there will be a shortfall though. Even if the projections show it.

I rang the solicitor and he said if I can get proof send it and he will look at it.

You dont need proof. Although NU should be able to supply a copy of the application. Also, you can ask NU what company is receiving the renewal commission. NU typically pay this monthly.

They also said that as the policy doesnt mature until 2013 we are premature with our request.

That is not the correct response and breaches the rules laid out by the law society.

What are our chances of success?

Its a solicitor so its low. Plus it's NU so shortfall is likely to be low or non existent when they factor everything in.

I would ask NU who is receiving the renewal commission as this will be the selling agent unless you have appointed a new agent at any time. I would also keep copies of their responses and tell them that if they reject your complaint that you will go to the law society.

The_Eye_Of_Sauron

dunstonh wrote: »

Its a solicitor so its low. .

In fact, so low that it's non-existent. Over 15 years ago, the Latent Damage Act applies (you can't bring a claim for negligence against eg a solicitor or an accountant or other types of professional advisor more than 15 years from the act or omission complained of).

So basically, if someone was sold an endowment by such a person before (as at today) 20th December 1992, they are out of time.

mayb_2

Wow - what's so special about solicitors and accountants that they are protected in this way? So are you sugesting this applies to financial advisors as they are not all 'professional' as I know to my cost?

sheilavw

Thanks for replies everyone. I probably sound really dumb here Dunstonh but I presumed that once they had sold the endowment and received
commission that was it. Do they receive more than one amount of commission. What I cant understand is when they have contacted the solicitor involved that he is adamant that he didnt sell any endowments during his career. Surely ours wasnt the only one? Could he have done this without other partners in his practice being involved? I remember with the purchase of our first house he recommended a builder to do all our work as it was a wreck and a company to do all the damp proofing so perhaps he was getting commission for this to ? Why should a chance of success be low because it was a solicitor? and can we fight on if they say no? Thanks everyone for all your input

dunstonh

Thanks for replies everyone. I probably sound really dumb here Dunstonh but I presumed that once they had sold the endowment and received
commission that was it.

Commission can be taken in a number of ways. Typically, indemnity, non-indemenity and level. Most endowments were taken on indemnity basis where an upfront payment was made but then a monthly payment after a certain period. The amounts arent normally a lot but the original seller is still earning from it unless you assign a new agent (typically an IFA) to take over the policy.

What I cant understand is when they have contacted the solicitor involved that he is adamant that he didnt sell any endowments during his career.

A copy of the application should confirm that as it would have agent details. As would confirmation to where the renewal commissions are being paid (ask provider who the servicing agent/adviser is for the policy. They will give name and address).

Could he have done this without other partners in his practice being involved?

Yes. The agency may have been a personal one rather than a professional one. Many years ago, agencies were dished out to unregulated individuals.

I remember with the purchase of our first house he recommended a builder to do all our work as it was a wreck and a company to do all the damp proofing so perhaps he was getting commission for this to ?

Backhanders were common in the past but were outlawed. You say 1980s so its possible back then.

Why should a chance of success be low because it was a solicitor?

They were not regulated by the FSA until 2001. The same protections do not apply to them as they do with IFAs and tied agents.

and can we fight on if they say no?

As you can see above, Eye of Sauron believes they will reject it as it has timed out. Although it does seem strange that they didnt use that excuse from the start. Instead, it appears they would consider it if you could prove it was sold by them.

Rather than give up, get the insurer to confirm the details and then pursue it. If they do come back with it being timed out at that point, then its end of the road.

The_Eye_Of_Sauron

mayb wrote: »

Wow - what's so special about solicitors and accountants that they are protected in this way? So are you sugesting this applies to financial advisors as they are not all 'professional' as I know to my cost?

The Latent Damage Act applies to anyone who has a potential liability in contract or tort. Accountants, solicitors, IFA's, dentists, vets, you name it......even the bloke who did your house survey on 19th December 1992.

If you engaged a builder 16 years ago to put a new roof on, and he loused it up, or used asbestos, you are shafted. It's not restricted to 'professionals' though in the context of endowment sales, you are hardly likely to have bought one from a jobbing builder. But then again- late 80's who knows? LOL.

The rationale behind the legislation (Latent Damage Act) is that all potential claims must have a 'death' date, and it was decided that 15 years it was.

Life companies are under pressure from the FSA not to invoke this time limit (and of course claims versus life companies go through the FSA and apparently a lot of them have opted not to take the 15 year time-limit point in the interests of good publicity/ good customer relations).

Unlike estate agents, solicitors and accountants, (who were not regulated to the same extent in 1988)- those professions stick to the letter of the law. Hence DunstonH's comment about low prospects of recovery against solicitors.

Basically, unless you have been sold an endowment by a solicitor, accountant, estate agent or similar since 1993, forget it, in terms of a claim against those sorts of people.

If you were sold one from 1993 onwards- act quickly. Time is running against you.