Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

dunstonh

Why should a person's claim essentially be any less valid because they have gone through a claims company? Sure, some may have been encouraged to jump on the bandwagon. But this should not disadvantage those that are genuine and that is what 'judges' (in the loosest term) are employed to weigh up and make responsible judgement on.

The problem is that a lot of the complaints from claims companies (and I again repeat that this is not all) just use a standard template letter listing every possible conceivable area whether it applies or not. Not the specific reason for the complaint. They are hoping that the client file has something missing in it somewhere so they can win on a technicality. That has put the backs up of the people handling the complaints. Hence why some claims companies are looked at negatively.

People will have gone to claims companies because they do not feel strong enough, competent enough or have verbal or written abilities that would enable them to represent themselves.

Doesnt mean the claims company is any good and when you actually see the complaints letters sent in you will often question what the company is doing for its money. Some are just lists of everything that can possibly apply and almost match the Which? template. That is the last you hear from that firm.

There have been plenty of examples of going back to clients to clarify a point on their complaint to be told by the client that they were told to say that by the claims company as it would improve the chances of success. Or where scripted responses have been written by the claims company which are then pulled apart under scrutiny and destroy the credibility of the client so if a decision ends up being a balance of probability case, the client loses out.

Interesting that EMC are now the largest third party claims firm against your network dunstoh. That situation has certainly changed from a year ago.

It looks like there have been issues with EMC as well, such as automatic referral to FOS on rejected complaints and scripted and standardised responses/letter of complaints. All the things that give the claims companies a bad name. DOTW must jump and and down in frustration when he hears that because I am sure complaints would be more successful with a personalised letter.

Whilst one can't comment on different practices between firms, I suspect many FOS fees may not have been paid if firms had enclosed evidence to support their rejections.

We were told that they were pushing for the FOS to filter out obvious cases where advice was documented correctly and there was no chance of complaint being upheld and not be charged for that. I dont know if they were successful in this but I wouldnt be surprised if the frivolous complaint waiver has been used a lot more.

mondy_2

I am trying to look into the fact that we believe that my wife was mis-sold an endowment in 1998 but surprise surprise the company (Mortgage Advisory Centre Ltd) has gone into liquidation so we have to claim compensation from the FSCS.
I am finding their forms very complicated and we have a lack of paperwork to prove that we were made claims of extra lump sums via endowments with no mention of the risk of shortfalls so not sure if it is worthwhile sending in the claim.
Has anyone been successful in claiming via the FSCS and what details should we give?
Any advice would be appreciated.

Crazy_Saver

I asked for my paperwork to be sent to me - does every claimant do that I wonder? I think it may be a case of the company sending the paperwork to the Ombudsman when asked and the complainant does not automatically get a copy.

treliac wrote: »

I've been told the company can be asked to supply a copy of their file and shouldn't charge more than £10 for it.

I did manage to get a copy of our file from the company who sold us the endowment but it took a lot of e-mails before they would release it. They didn't charge me though.

Getting a full copy of all correspondence from the FOS was another kettle of fish! It took a long time, a lot of e-mails and a lot of "I'm sure we have sent you everything" replies.

We did eventually get a full copy after the adjudicator's final decision was made. We therefore had to write another final statement as the correspondence between the FOS and the firm was unbelievably biased as well as untrue!

We are now waiting for our case to be passed on to an ombudsman but after reading DOTW's post, I am not feeing quite so confident.

mayb_2

The maximum charge of £10 treliac relates to documents held on file about you and which you ask to be sent to you under the Data Protection Act. So quote that if you are intending to use it. I will look up the wording and post it on here later.

Don't give up Crazy Saver - I am sure at best it is a lottery as to who looks at your paperwork and makes the decisions. No reason for you not to be lucky - see it and believe it and it is more likely to happen for you.

defender_of_the_weak

Mondy

Dont worry about the FSCS forms just answer the questions as best you can if you cant remember, then write, don't remember. With regards to the promised lump sum explain that the only information is based on recollection of conversations

Dunston, you are right about other claims companies and the way they handle cases, it was because of what I was seeing when working in the techie dept of a major life office, and the fees they charge for so little that I started the company, hopefully as an ethical and cheaper alternative to what I consider a buch of unqualified rip-off merchants

I do think it is a pity that all companies such as mine are tarred with the same old brush, its a bit like the days when every financial adviser was dubbed a shiney suited salesman. Most of the people I have met in the business, bearing in mind I also operate as a trainer and have taught literally thousands of them, as just honest blokes trying to do a good job

mayb_2

I appreciate what you are saying defender of the weak and if that is so there are a lot of very unlucky people here, who just happended to meet the bad shiny suited salespeople. Then again, they would not be likely to be attending any training courses would they? Don't forget these people were operating a long time ago - not in real time now. That doesn't mean to say they are not still out there, or their replacements may be - perhaps sharp suited now with mobile phone, laptop and false, very large smile hiding shark teeth!

dunstonh

I do think it is a pity that all companies such as mine are tarred with the same old brush, its a bit like the days when every financial adviser was dubbed a shiney suited salesman. Most of the people I have met in the business, bearing in mind I also operate as a trainer and have taught literally thousands of them, as just honest blokes trying to do a good job

I agree. The small minority of bad apples on both sides spoil the image for everyone.

I appreciate what you are saying defender of the weak and if that is so there are a lot of very unlucky people here, who just happended to meet the bad shiny suited salespeople.

There is only about a third of the advisers today compared to 10 years ago. Many of those that did the dirty deed have been eased out. The FSAs RDR should ease out the rest. Those that are left suffer the image of those long gone.

mayb_2

So who was it that was selling 5 - 7 times income mortgages to those who couldn't afford it I wonder? Who were the kings of the sub prime market scams? Follow the commission I say and find the sharks then look up to see who had the fishing line in hand.

Crazy_Saver

mayb wrote: »

So who was it that was selling 5 - 7 times income mortgages to those who couldn't afford it I wonder? Who were the kings of the sub prime market scams? Follow the commission I say and find the sharks then look up to see who had the fishing line in hand.

Look out Guys.....................She's on a roll!!!

Hi mayb.

I am still hopeful that the truth will out with our case, but as it stands, we are on our 3rd "still waiting for an ombudsman to look at your case" letter:mad:

It's worse than being kept on hold on the phone and being constantly reminded that "my call is important to them ":wall:

mayb_2

Believe me Crazy Saver I know what you mean. It has been a few years now since we were where you are and I understand the delays and frustrations have increased since then. The time bar is responsible for the number of claims entering the system so 'hoist on their own petard' with that one. However, it is the claimant who takes the brunt of this as always. We can only offer each other support and I took some comfort in the fact that I had fought a good fight and was better off than I might have been, if I had fallen at the first hurdle. Hang in there and you never know. I look forward to sharing your good news. I am a great believer in positive thinking.