Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

Crazy_Saver

mayb wrote: »

Have to say we know a lot more now - and were even aware of the sub prime market problems in America and Spain far earlier than Northern Rock!!! Could it be that we are still being ripped off by financial companies I wonder? Lets just sell a few more of these before everyone finds out what is happening - the commission is so good we can't stop now. Trouble is this one could lead to a real recession and nobody wants that, least of all the same institutions that created it. Integrity is what is missing these days. Now I am getting maudlin.

Calm down mayb:rotfl:

Great to see you are back on form X X X X

treliac

Although it had been accepted that we did not understand about our endowment mortgage and it was missold, the ombudsman would not accept that we didn't know what we were doing when we bought the 'pension' two years later. His thinking appeared to be that we had experience of endowments because we had the mortgage endowment - plus the company lied about other policies we had bought and when we pointed out that we didn't actually have any other such policies it was ignored. After all these companies don't lie do they!!!!! So two years after we had bought the mortgage we had become financial wizzkids and knew all about the stockmarket etc.

Doesn't make sense. If your endowment mortgage was accepted as mis-sold, that would suggest ,IMHO, that you could get into the same situation again. After all, it was only a short time afterwards. How can the company's lies be accepted? Don't they have to produce the evidence, just like the complainant does?

Integrity is what is missing these days.

Think it starts from the govt down.


The time bar issue worries me. I don't see the justification in making what seems like an arbitrary ruling on something like a mortgage that's at the centre of everyone's life. It seems that it's usual for the reality of mis-sales to become evident many years after the sale took place. Our hopes, security and family life all depend on having a proper home. If we've done our best to build this, why should we be threatened with the possible loss of all we hold dear because of dishonest and greedy salesmen or companies? Perhaps the infamous Human Rights Act could be used.

treliac

mayb wrote: »

These are the things you are paying for when you send something by recorded delivery. If you search for Royal Mail on your computer and look for the Track option or Track and Trace depending on which screen you are in, you will be able to put the reference number from the slip you were given when posting this. If you have lost this there is a link to a page dealing with that too.

• Proof of posting
• Signature on delivery
• Online confirmation of delivery
• Up to £34 compensation
• Prices from 70p plus normal postage

You should send another recorded delivery letter saying what has happened (when you find out what happens when you track your letter) and include a copy of the letter you sent to Friends Provident and a copy of their reply to you. You raised this issue with the people who sent you the red letter before the cut off date they had given you. Best of luck with that.

If you can't find the Royal Mail link come back to me and I will put the link on here. Don't know why but my new Window's packaged computer will not allow me to open more than one explorer window at a time. This makes transfering info so much harder to do. Soon as you open a new one it shuts down the one you had. Sooooooooooooo annoying.

Don't hold your breath with the Track & Trace. I sent something by Recorded Delivery 6 weeks ago and for several weeks it's said that it left their delivery office for delivery today. The automated phone option goes through a long spiel and then hangs up on me!

Make sure you hang onto your receipt.

mayb_2

I couldn't have agreed with you more treliac. Unfortunately I am not the only one that fell by the wayside of the ombudsman service. They have taken on more staff in order to deal with the large number of complaints and I think it could be pot luck as to who deals with yours.

The Company did lie and had altered the fact find to fit their needs and in so doing made mistakes that we could point to. The Ombudsman contacted them again when I pointed out the discrepancies in their account and the fact that the policy numbers they quoted did not exist or were not related to endowments. He even expressed his concern about this and other things but decided to go with them anyway. Chiefly for the reasons I explained before.

The company contacted one of the actual sales people and subsequently sent a copy of an email to the ombudsman, purported to be from one of them. This email was a report of a telephone conversation between the company and this salesman. We never knew the name of the person involved. It basically said in a couple of lines that he had followed all of the companies procedures when selling this policy. That was good enough for the ombudsman. We asked that they made contact with our regular rep who had been present at the time of the sale. They said they could not contact him as they didn't have an address. We knew he had retired and that they were paying him a pension.

The fact find even said that we had not been given an illustration at the time. We never received any updates and had no reason to be concerned that this wasn't performing. The company had even closed the fund without informing us.

There are none so blind as those that will not see. We were doomed before we started. If the Ombudsman starts treating these policies in the same way as missold mortgage endowments the floodgates would open and who knows where it would end. I will follow your case with interest treliac and keep everything crossed for you.

treliac

This is disgraceful. Doesn't inspire much confidence and I wonder what our experience will be. We've had a letter from the FOS today to say they are too busy to allocate our case to an adjudicator yet. From what I've already been told on this thread, it's likely to have to go on to an ombudsman though, as it's complex. I don't mind how long we wait, so long as we're finally dealt with fairly. It's even more complex than I've already posted. I may PM you mayb, if that's okay? I'm getting a bit worried about hogging this thread.

mayb_2

I don't have a problem with that treliac but at the same time I think that people should be aware of our sort of experiences because, as you say, these things are complicated. Everyone can learn from the experiences of others.

One of the things I learnt was that I sounded as if I knew what I was talking about when I wrote to the Ombudsman - I had, like you, spent much time in research and had educated myself about these things. They took that to mean this was the person I was when I took out the mortgage. I think they could not envisage the market place that existed then and so looked at the market now and the person I was now. The adjudicator looking at our case was very young - he sounded about 12 on the phone and got very agitated and refused to answer when I asked how old he was.

The question was asked because he was denying the situation that existed back in the early 1990's, could have existed. It was obvious he had lived in the world of laptops and blackberries and portable printers, not to mention mobile phones and on line transactions. He couldn't see that these things were not 'shown' to you in any way. The guy just talked and we just listened - we didn't know what the questions should be so we didn't ask them. We didn't even realise how expensive the payments were going to be - we were cancelling my pension policy at the time because we couldn't afford it. We were persuaded to take this instead of the pension and ended up doubling up on our payments. We were totally bamboozled. The Ombudsman even refused to see the link in the pension policy being cancelled on the same day we took out this policy. We knew in the end that it didn't matter how strong our case was they had their own reasons for not recognising it - probably chose the youngest, most inexpereinced person they had to deal with it to ensure the outcome.

I am only letting you know what happened to us, and I know to many others, in order that you may be aware of the possibilities and avoid some of the pitfalls we fell into.

Crazy_Saver

treliac wrote: »

This is disgraceful. Doesn't inspire much confidence and I wonder what our experience will be. We've had a letter from the FOS today to say they are too busy to allocate our case to an adjudicator yet. From what I've already been told on this thread, it's likely to have to go on to an ombudsman though, as it's complex. I don't mind how long we wait, so long as we're finally dealt with fairly. It's even more complex than I've already posted. I may PM you mayb, if that's okay? I'm getting a bit worried about hogging this thread.

Hi treliac

Please don't think your hogging the boards, although we aren't all replying to your posts, there are many of us who watch stories like yours unfold with avid interest. I for one have been following your posts as I am in the middle of a very long and stretched out case with the FOS. Mine started in the summer of 2006!

I won't bore the other posters by repeating my story yet again but feel free to look at my previous posts and you'll see that you really aren't alone.

I must also add, that there are some really helpful people on these boards and I know that mayb would agree even if she does enjoy a good round in the boxing ring with them:rotfl:

But joking aside, I'm sure you will find that they are more than willing to help you every inch of the way with your case, as long as you are open and honest with them.

I really would never have been able to come as far as I have without these guys:beer:

Good Luck

Crazy Saver

mayb_2

You're right Crazy Saver I will always fight my corner, but I am sure my protagonists know it is never personal - just an exchange of views. It would be pointless and unhelpfull - us all agreeing with each other just for the sake of it.

I fought my cases on the whole before I found this site so agree that it would have been beneficial to have been able to air it here first. I am sure I could have avoided some mistakes when presenting my case.

I am always ready to change my point of view if someone can convince me with a reasoned argument. If it doesn't happen often, it is because I have arrived at my views through a process of careful thought and research beforehand, so do not appologise for that. I enjoy the sharpening of the mind through these forums (some might say the sharpening of my tongue - but hey), and the chance to look at things differently. I am presently suffering from a slipped disc and have been off work for many months and am at least able to take part in life with my computer and people like teliac, dunstonh, yourself and many others to engage my mind and distract me from my own troubles before I get totally selfabsorbed!

dunstonh

protagonist

Its good discussion which helps us all even if it doesnt work out for you financially.

dunstonh

I got a compliance bulletin sent to me today on complaints and thought you may be interested as it gives you an indication of what happens on the other side. Copied and pasted:

Practical tips for dealing with third party complaint handlers

Third party complaints are in decline, however they still account for 49% of all our regulated complaints, EMC being the largest, providing us with 34% of all regulated complaints received. We are able to reject a large majority of these, as on the whole, the client files are well evidenced with the appropriate warnings given. Currently 25% of Endowment complaints can be rejected by time barring on red reprojection letters received by the complainants from the plan provider. We feel this percentage will increase throughout 2008 as the time-bar rules start to really take effect.

It is due to this that third party complaint firms have had to look to other areas in which to manage complaints. They have made attempts both in the SERPS area and With Profit Bonds. We have been able to successfully reject SERPS complaints as long as the age and income profile was met, as the FSA deem these sales as acceptable (even with a limited amount of information within the client file). On the whole, SERPS policies were sold by tied advisers of large firms with direct sales teams such as the Prudential and not by IFAs. The majority of potential SERPS complainants have been put-off by the hefty up-front non-refundable admin fees that firms charge for this service, being typically £400 + VAT (Morgan Green) plus a percentage of any redress obtained. The market for complaints against With Profit Bonds never really got off the ground as the majority of MVAs have now been lifted amongst the major insurance companies.

The current major growth areas for third party complaint firms are bank charges and payment protection plans, where the banks have merely ticked a box on the application form instead of asking any relevant questions. Thankfully this growth area does not affect [IFAs].

Complaint letters received from EMC are generic in nature all noting the same complaint points irrespective of the actual complaint from the client. These will typically allege that life cover was not required, attitude to risk hadn't been established or that a low start plan was sold. These allegations can usually be refuted with the help of a well-documented client file.

EMC assure us that they have a qualified ex-IFA who vets cases prior to them progressing to the Financial Ombudsman Service. It's a good idea therefore to include any copies of red reprojection letters in with your response if time-barring a case as this may prevent the complaint progressing to the FOS and you incurring the £400 fee.