Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

mayb_2

True, but not impossible this wasn't done according to rules as why would someone buy it after being shown it was not a good bet and understood that fact?

treliac

When did buyers reliably start to get clear information that there was a risk that the policy they were buying might not pay off the mortgage?

And, when did it start to emerge that there was likely to be a big problem with these mortgages?

Retired_I.F.A.

dreamylittledream wrote: »

Winterthur and its predecessor's only sold through tied reps.

Complain to them in the first instance

Complain to the estate agent first.

Winterthur took over Provident life who distibuted products by direct sales and via agencies with brokers/estate agents etc. Predominantly via estate agents.

I was a Provident Life broker consultant / Life inspector for a time back in 86 or thereabouts. At that time they would not accept a proposal form unless it was completed in the proposers own hand and was submitted with a copy of the illustation which the proposer/s had signed to state they understood the risks involved. If that practice was adhered to throughout the country and maintained therafter I doubt it'd pass as a missold case.(Provident Life were very strict on this at the time whereas no other company did anywhere near the same)

Retired_I.F.A.

treliac wrote: »

When did buyers reliably start to get clear information that there was a risk that the policy they were buying might not pay off the mortgage?

When they bought it. Usually.

And, when did it start to emerge that there was likely to be a big problem with these mortgages?

When the investments fell below expectations and the regulators said there could be compensation for anyone who was missold which led to thousands making claims they knew to be bogus, getting compensation often from the funds themselves and thus increasing fund deficits.

danlojo

Hi

Does anyone still have the fight on their hands for compensation after 18 months of applying for it?

Long story cut short.........We took out an endowment in 1992 over 25 years with Mandrake. It was for £50,000 for a down payment on our first house. It is at the moment expected to hit low £30,000 if we're lucky when it's due to pay out.

Took the fight through the company who stated ,'go to the ombudsman'. In Oct 2006 we did this and was initially ruled in our favour by the adjudicator. Mandrake didnt like this and so it's now with the ombudsman and who knows when it will be dealt with?

What I dont understand is when we took out the policy we were obviously told that it would GUARANTEE a MINIMUM payout of £50,000. Luckily for us we keep all the representatives doodles, sketches and paperwork which he confirmed in black and white.:rotfl:

Why is it taking this long when I read that others have been compensated within a few months?

Just had a one way conversation :mad: with The Financial Ombudsman dept dealing with it and I guess they now realise that I'm a tad miffed.

Andrea:D

dreamylittledream

Retired_I.F.A. wrote: »

Complain to the estate agent first.

Winterthur took over Provident life who distibuted products by direct sales and via agencies with brokers/estate agents etc. Predominantly via estate agents.

I was a Provident Life broker consultant / Life inspector for a time back in 86 or thereabouts. At that time they would not accept a proposal form unless it was completed in the proposers own hand and was submitted with a copy of the illustation which the proposer/s had signed to state they understood the risks involved. If that practice was adhered to throughout the country and maintained therafter I doubt it'd pass as a missold case.(Provident Life were very strict on this at the time whereas no other company did anywhere near the same)

This is assuming its an ex Provident Life policy of course.

I'd still complaint to Winterthur first - if it was an agent operating independantly they'll tell you and give the latest details they have to hand. If it wasn't they will investigate.

Simpler and easier if you ask me...

dreamylittledream

danlojo wrote: »

Hi

Does anyone still have the fight on their hands for compensation after 18 months of applying for it?

Long story cut short.........We took out an endowment in 1992 over 25 years with Mandrake. It was for £50,000 for a down payment on our first house. It is at the moment expected to hit low £30,000 if we're lucky when it's due to pay out.

Took the fight through the company who stated ,'go to the ombudsman'. In Oct 2006 we did this and was initially ruled in our favour by the adjudicator. Mandrake didnt like this and so it's now with the ombudsman and who knows when it will be dealt with?

What I dont understand is when we took out the policy we were obviously told that it would GUARANTEE a MINIMUM payout of £50,000. Luckily for us we keep all the representatives doodles, sketches and paperwork which he confirmed in black and white.:rotfl:

Why is it taking this long when I read that others have been compensated within a few months?

Just had a one way conversation :mad: with The Financial Ombudsman dept dealing with it and I guess they now realise that I'm a tad miffed.

Andrea:D

You got a final response from madrake?

Wonders never cease. For reference Mandrake are currently dealing with complaints receieved in early 2006. I believe they are now under offical FSA sanction for this.

As to why its taking so long - Mandrake have the right to appeal an adjudicators decision to an Ombudsman. They typical wait time from an adjudictor isssuing their view to an OMbudsman actually considering the case is between 12-18 months. Put simply there are many cases awaiting final decision and not very many Ombudsmen/women.

mayb_2

I thought that an adjudication from the Ombudsman was binding on the Company but not on you - or am I muddling this up with something else?

treliac

Retired_I.F.A. wrote: »

When they bought it. Usually.



When the investments fell below expectations and the regulators said there could be compensation for anyone who was missold which led to thousands making claims they knew to be bogus, getting compensation often from the funds themselves and thus increasing fund deficits.

I was rather expecting an approximate year in the answer! In any case why aren’t the insurance companies paying redress from their own pockets. Isn’t it mishandling of their investors’ money?

I can’t imagine that all these people claiming a mis-sale were avid gamblers who decided, just for the fun of it or because it possibly cost a bit less each month, to pay into a policy year after year with the view that they might finally have to sell their home (the foundation of their family’s security) or end up having to pay a heck of a lot more money just to keep it.

Sounds just the sort of thing you would choose to spend 25 years sitting on the edge of your seat over.

Many would have claimed once they were told it was possible, makes sense, but equally, how many would have been aware of their situation beforehand? How many new enquiries are still coming onto the forum despite years of publicity now?

Your implications would seem to cast aspersions on the integrity of the MSE site. Surely all the advice on mis-sold mortgages hasn’t been given with the intention of encouraging people to commit fraud?

Some might be fatally reckless but not the majority. Or, Retired IFA, are you just playing devil’s advocate?

dunstonh

Isn’t it mishandling of their investors’ money?

Partly the insurers, partly the Govt. Partly the consumer.

I can’t imagine that all these people claiming a mis-sale were avid gamblers who decided, just for the fun of it or because it possibly cost a bit less each month

Oh yes they did. You are going back to a time when the mortgages were around £200pm and the earnings for first time buyers was often under £10k a year. The savings could often be around £20pm on that monthly cost.

to pay into a policy year after year with the view that they might finally have to sell their home (the foundation of their family’s security) or end up having to pay a heck of a lot more money just to keep it.

Most endowments that are in shortfall are are only a few thousand away. Many of those have sufficient time to put a bit more aside to make up the potential shortfall which in real terms is quite small.

Your implications would seem to cast aspersions on the integrity of the MSE site. Surely all the advice on mis-sold mortgages hasn’t been given with the intention of encouraging people to commit fraud?

There has been significant numbers of opportunistic and fraudulent complaints. There are no doubts that many endowments were mis-sold. However, it was nowhere near the scale that has been seen. A lot of the complaints that result in redress are because the file is missing documents or just doesnt exist. Not because they were mis-sold.

Even those that have run the FSA, FOS and been involved in the mis-selling issues at a high level have admitted that fraudulent or opportunistic claims have been a problem.

The flawed method of redress has a lot to do with it. My mortgage adviser showed me a complaint earlier this week the one of his clients had asked his opinion on (not against us but another firm). It was upheld and the redress payment was just over £800. However, the surrender penalty on this unit linked endowment was just over £2000 and its on track for a surplus. So, at this moment, using the current value and not the surrender value he is £1200 better off than he would have been on a repayment mortgage and heading for a surplus but still getting paid £800 redress. You would be surprised how often that is actually the case.

You shouldnt assume that all advisers are bad and you shouldnt assume all consumers are angels.