Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

mayb_2

What about the small claims court - can you take misselling cases there if you can't use anything else to pursue your case. I assume you can keep paying into the policy if you want to.

I don't get that analogy dunstonh - your talking about a change in the law. It surely was always unlawful to missell something to someone - but because it involves large amounts of money and the financial companies may suffer they arrange the law to suit themselves with this one.

As I understand it companies take the money they pay you in redress from the pot that isn't performing (its not quite as straightforward as that) but that means that those left in are going to suffer detriment too. In the end it is more a question of ethics isn't it. If you win someone else will suffer and if they win ................... and so it goes on. I think more thought should have been put into it at the beginning. If this was openly discussed and everyone involved knew what was going on, then it may have been possible to convince some people to stay in their own scheme and those companies who couldn't survive would have had to cease trading and a compensation scheme could have existed for the customers so affected. Instead each person has to fight a battle with the company that may well have been fought a hundred times before against that company - it then becomes a lottery of who wins and who loses their case.

This creates an atmosphere of distrust - and rightly so- this means nobody trusts their financial company and everyone is looking for redress. This can't help the overall business for each company.

Did that all make sense to anyone - I think I will go and lie down.

treliac

sheilavw wrote: »

Thanks for replies everyone. Surely its not fair to have no form of redress? How can we fight our case without it costing? We clearly remember what the solicitor did yet we cannot now do anything about this and we are the ones losing out.

Sheila, I agree with you entirely and I'm sorry not to be able to offer much in the way of a suggestion. However pre and post regulation and time-barring might make sense in the world of finance, it doesn't to the ordinary person who feels cheated.

If you take legal advice it could cost you, although you can probably get a one-off fixed fee consultation that will not be too dear. Some firms even give a free initial consultation.

Have you looked closely to see how far out your endowment is likely to be in meeting it's target? This could be significant in deciding how to proceed and whether to risk further losses.

Crazy_Saver

mayb wrote: »

Instead each person has to fight a battle with the company that may well have been fought a hundred times before against that company - it then becomes a lottery of who wins and who loses their case.
quote]

Well said mayb. I would so love to know if any other claims have been brought against the FA/company I am battling with.

The FA in question touted work at the company my husband used to work for. She must have had quite a few clients just from his place of work. Many of them were at a similar stage in their life as we were - young, first or second time buyers and (rightly or wrongly), more interested in pubbing, clubbing and socialising than becoming financial whiz kids.

Did that all make sense to anyone - I think I will go and lie down.

Poor old girl;)

mayb_2

One thing I notice is the reluctance to name and shame on here. We don't all shout about the company or adviser - is there really anything that could happen to us if we did I wonder?

treliac

Hi Mayb and Crazy Saver - it's great to see us all here tonight, doing battle.

What about the small claims court - can you take misselling cases there if you can't use anything else to pursue your case.

It might be possible to use the Small Claims Court but they only hear cases with a value of £5,000 or less, which will rule lots out.

The FA in question touted work at the company my husband used to work for. She must have had quite a few clients just from his place of work.

That's curious - it's how ours operated. Must have been a tactic they were trained in. If we hadn't received the heavy sell, we would have made our own application - probably stuck with our existing lender.

One thing I notice is the reluctance to name and shame on here.

Yes, in our case as I told you mayb, it feels at too sensitive a stage at present. All in good time.


t xx

treliac

mayb wrote: »

As I understand it companies take the money they pay you in redress from the pot that isn't performing (its not quite as straightforward as that) but that means that those left in are going to suffer detriment too. In the end it is more a question of ethics isn't it. If you win someone else will suffer and if they win ................... and so it goes on. I think more thought should have been put into it at the beginning. If this was openly discussed and everyone involved knew what was going on, then it may have been possible to convince some people to stay in their own scheme and those companies who couldn't survive would have had to cease trading and a compensation scheme could have existed for the customers so affected. Instead each person has to fight a battle with the company that may well have been fought a hundred times before against that company - it then becomes a lottery of who wins and who loses their case.

This creates an atmosphere of distrust - and rightly so- this means nobody trusts their financial company and everyone is looking for redress. This can't help the overall business for each company.

Did that all make sense to anyone - I think I will go and lie down.

Sorry mayb, forgot to add - This is brilliantly put and right to the point (of course the experts will probably disagree) but, from a novice's viewpoint it hits the spot precisely. An organised challenge to the system could be worth considering.

Retired_I.F.A.

"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."

Thats not so really, Even with Miras and LAPR and a rate of 10% (which was more like 14% back then) A repayment mortgage with decreasing term assurance was always slightly cheaper than an endowment. The only time it became cheaper was when lenders threw out 'the guaranteed sum assured plus seventy percent of the then rate of reversionay bonus's equaled the mortgage' criteria (replaced initially with a 7% gowth rate) which led to silly 10% or more gowth rate required plans, including unit linked ones without any guarantees at all.

Looking back on it now you could say the Financial Service Act 86 was partly to blame for the shortfalls of today. As it was the regulators of the act that decided to outlaw traditional quotes, the lenders wanted some assurance and settled for 7% then the building societies cartel folded and in free for all mode they basically said: sod it we have the property as security joe public can have interest only with no repayment at all if he wants.

**********************************************************

Retired IFA, are you just playing devil’s advocate?

One of my favourite pastimes, To be honest though, the endowment route was not then percieved as being risky nor would it ever have been without the economic changes that followed. Bonus rates had steadily increased year on year since the war as had house prices. The prospect of interest rates falling to 1/3rd of what they were seemed an almost impossible task till Maggie bought the economy to it's knees.

Of the cowboy salesmen I knew only one (hopefully still in prison) who lied though his teeth and even he never guaranteed mortgage repayment as he never believed anyone was that gullible. If they wanted guarantees he'd talk them into a full endowment mortgage and get far more commission or charge them a dirty great big fee for arranging their mortgage.

Edit..
Note I never guaranteed a low cost endowment to repay a motgage, hell I still cant even spell the damn word right as every edit in my posts is to respell it.

***********************************************************

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.

Did you ever read the policy?

vinno65

Retired_I.F.A. wrote: »

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.

Surely bogus claims would not have been upheld!!And why were the life companies allowed to use the fund to pay redress? Surely this should have come from company profits and the shareholders bear the responsibility.
And finally as I have said to Dunston on many an occasion,whilst most IFA's would i am sure been very compliant in the sale of endowments,most people like me were sold their endowment in a branch of one of the big banks (the Abbey in my case) by an employee (often entitled "mortgage advisor") whose job it was to sell endowments to the unsuspecting public by hook or by crook.They had a vested interest in this in not only were they paid handsomely by the life companies for selling their product but it also meant that they got 25 years of interest payments whereas on a repayment mortgage the interest paid back is much less.

regards Vinno

kaznelson

Further to my previous post I have now wrote 3 letters to the accountant that mis-sold me my endowment policy.

I still haven't got a reply!!

Can anybody advise what is my next step?

vinno65

dunstonh wrote: »

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.

Dunston you keep chanting this mantra as some sort of proof that most complaints are fraudulent,but you have yet to explain why documents were lost or didn't exist(which is even worse) on a product with a life of 25 years!
It's disgraceful

In the absence of documentation the FSA/FOS tend to side with the consumer, I wonder why?

regards Vinno