Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

defender_of_the_weak

Re the shiney suited ones.

Most of the mis-selling was due to ignorance and lack of training not from a malicious viewpoint. Companies recruited anyone with a pulse gave them the minimum training they could get away with and got them flogging to whoever they could. It doesnt mean the individuals were bad people just ignorant. Back in the eighties and early nineties people had significaantly less access to things like this forum and relied on personal referrals and the knowledge or otherwise of the man down the pub who says whatever he thinks without any real knowledge

mayb_2

Quite agree defender of the week, it was not malicious but it was often ignorant and sometimes greedy. A lot of policies were sold after it was realised they didn't have a hope in hell of covering the mortgages they were linked with. I don't accept the ignorance argument for those selling the mortgages I referred to just now, those are totally based on greed and a need to keep your job in some cases. In this results based industry, you don't survive by having a conscience.

However, that doesn't mean everyone is tarred with the same brush, but I wouldn't like to take a chance on anyone to advise me now - twice bitten and all that.

ps I wish you had been around to explain that scenario to the adjudicator who decided on my case that the world was and always has been as it is now.

treliac

defender_of_the_weak wrote: »

Re the shiney suited ones.

Most of the mis-selling was due to ignorance and lack of training not from a malicious viewpoint. Companies recruited anyone with a pulse gave them the minimum training they could get away with and got them flogging to whoever they could. It doesnt mean the individuals were bad people just ignorant. Back in the eighties and early nineties people had significaantly less access to things like this forum and relied on personal referrals and the knowledge or otherwise of the man down the pub who says whatever he thinks without any real knowledge

I can accept what you are saying here DOTW. I want to attribute your sentiments to the first tied adviser who sold to us; I liked him and I find it difficult to think he would have deliberately conned us.

However, the companies are ultimately responsible and they should pay up honourably now that people are challenging these mis-sales - out of their own fat profits. Instead they are lying, dodging and ducking and prolonging the agony.

mayb_2

I am sure that the rep who used to come to our house on a regular basis to collect premiums would have backed us in our claim. He was a 'friend' of the family in some ways and we always asked his advice about insurance etc. He brought the chap who actually sold us the 'endowment' on that man's insistance because, we had said we wanted to close a pension policy we had with the company. We couldn't afford it at the time. The second chap had been brought in before when we wanted to have a private pension plan. Our regular guy didn't know enough about this other business to advise us.

We asked that the company contact him to endorse our version of the events that took place at the point of sale. The company said they didn't have a contact address for him. We knew he had retired and the company was therefore paying his pension. We knew where he lived as he was quite local but felt it would be wrong to approach him ourselves. We didn't realise how vital his help would have been. The salesman himself never made a statement of any sort that we could see.

There are good guys and bad guys out there but as treliac says the ultimate responsibility was and still is with the companies themselves.

dunstonh

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.

The mortgage brokers doing that were filling a need. No, they were filling a want. If they hadnt sold them then the consumer would have found someone that did. The issue there is with the lenders as they set the criteria. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that mentality but nowadays if someone wants something they will find a way to get it.

first tied adviser who sold to us; I liked him and I find it difficult to think he would have deliberately conned us.

Tied advisers (or any salesforce adviser in reality) are brainwashed with information that is positive. Never negative. They themselves get conned into believing they are doing the best thing. Its the salesforce mentality that did the damage. They have sales managers on their back all the time to hit targets. They are sacked if they dont.

treliac

Tied advisers (or any salesforce adviser in reality) are brainwashed with information that is positive. Never negative. They themselves get conned into believing they are doing the best thing. Its the salesforce mentality that did the damage. They have sales managers on their back all the time to hit targets. They are sacked if they dont.

What a sad and dangerous dog eat dog world we live in.

defender_of_the_weak

However, the companies are ultimately responsible and they should pay up honourably now that people are challenging these mis-sales - out of their own fat profits. Instead they are lying, dodging and ducking and prolonging the agony

Never going to happen I am afraid, many of these companies, and I only use the term many because I cannot categorically state otherwise are morally bankrupt. Dunstons assessment is accurate I am afraid, it is a dog eat dog world

vinno65

dunstonh wrote: »

The mortgage brokers doing that were filling a need. No, they were filling a want. If they hadnt sold them then the consumer would have found someone that did. The issue there is with the lenders as they set the criteria. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that mentality but nowadays if someone wants something they will find a way to get it. .

Hi Dunston I'm back, I think what you are saying is that if the mortgage brokers hadn't arrange the mortgages (5-7 times income) then people would have gone elsewhere. The only place they could have gone is to loan sharks,
nice to know that the financial services industry has stepped in to save the public yet again! Hurrah!!

regards Vinno

mayb_2

Tied advisers (or any salesforce adviser in reality) are brainwashed with information that is positive. Never negative. They themselves get conned into believing they are doing the best thing. Its the salesforce mentality that did the damage. They have sales managers on their back all the time to hit targets. They are sacked if they dont.

Tied advisors were paid good commission on the sales of endowment morgages, as opposed to a straight forward mortgage that probably didn't fall within their protfolio if they were tied to insurance companies.

If the tied advisors who sold us this endowment was so confident in his product why did he find it necessary to lie on the fact find I wonder? We took no part in the compilation of this document. Or perhaps he or another made the changes to the fact find once he realised we had made a complaint. Either way the result was a lie and one that cost us dearly. However, I do believe that most of the sales people believed in their product when selling it in the early years. I also know that many were sold once it was known they were no longer a viable mechanism for the claims being made for them - particularly low start endowment mortgages. Therefore they were either aware themselves and continued to push them, or they were not aware themselves and their employers failed to advise them of this. Either way the company has to bear the financial losses as they had the responsibility for the actions of their employees.

The latest trend to sell 5 to 7 times mortgage has no such excuse to offer as to the morality of this. The financial institutions offloading such business to spread the risk, proves they were totally aware of it but didn't want to be the one left with the 'old lady' card at the end of the game. Trouble is they weren't the only losers in this game that could in the end cost the country very dearly.

Do we have to be such leamings here and copy everything done by the Americans first I wonder. Greed is the name of the game.

Nobody would have gone searching the high street for a 5 or 7 times income mortgage if nobody was pushing them. If house prices and rents were included in the price indexing mechanisms and taken into account when looking at the real cost of living - people's incomes may be able to keep up with the cost of living in reality - not just the chancellor's dreams.

mayb_2

Nice to catch up with you vinno65.