Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

Retired_I.F.A.

Fred bought a car from a dealer who verbally told him it had done 50,000 miles as the clock showed. When it was delivered it had a sticker on the milometer saying the figure shown was not reliable it may be true it may not be.
Ten years and a further 50,000 miles later after having it serviced annually and each time being told it had done far more than the clock suggested Fred had the engine rebuilt and it was proven that the car had actually done 200.000 miles thus 100,000 when he bought it.

Can Fred claim compensation saying the sticker was never in place?

He can try but he has more chance of red rum winning the next grand national. Any judge would say without proof it's his word against the dealers as to the sticker being there. As such the judge would point out in this country one is innocent until proven guilty and throw out the case.

Except if it was an endowment instead of a car.

mayb_2

Sorry you two I cannot see the connection with all these cars and actually finding there is no way your mortgage is going to be paid off with the 'vehicle' you bought to do the job, is a little bit more serious than buying a dodgy car.

dunstonh I don't think anyone can claim that I believe that all sales are missales - feel free to refer to any post where I have said any such thing. As Crazy Saver, treliac and many others would tell you it is not just a question of asking and you will get. They and I had perfectly legitimate claims which were turned down by the Ombudsman. I think you will find it is you that persistantly states that many of these are false claims. If the Ombudsman is turning down genuine claims one hopes he could easily spot a false one and turn that down too.

This is not easy money being claimed and paid on demand. Once again I would say that you are not likely to find liars and cheats on this thread - what would be the point? So if you start with the premis that these people we are discussing on this thread are not telling lies (as I do) then you will obviously find me on their side when posting about it. That does not translate into 'I always say that all policies are missold'. Not many people have actually abused the person who sold it to them either - it may have been a very nice man or woman but the fact remains they were missold if the proper explanations and warnings weren't given.

My stance here has not changed and yours is not likely too either - we have tried and tested our points too often. In the end I believe people post on here for help with the difficult situations they find themselves in and I, and I believe you, will try to do that if we can.

This does not alter the fact that you were even less likely before regulation, to have got all of the information you needed to make an informed choice on your mortgage or pension for that matter. It is, therefore, unfair to exclude these people from the redress being paid to others in exactly the same situation.

In the long run this will be more economically sound and would promote the future wellbeing of, and confidence in, the financial institutions. Would you prefer to see people being in dire financial straits in their old age, because of a stubborn adherance to the belief that they probably knew what they were doing so tough luck? Believe me, I think this is a cheap option for the financial services industry as it is cheaper than actually paying out the full amount promised and relies on people making a claim and getting it past the Ombudsman - that together with the time bar is serving as a nice damage limitation exercise.

Like the Gas Board declaring their huge profits after putting up the price of gas and stirring up a storm - I don't beleive in the hard pressed financial ser vices industry either. They after all, always have the government behind them. There is a big empty space behind me!

My recent health issues now may mean I have to give up work - I took full time work, although I knew it was likely it would impinge on my health, to pay the mortgage as my husband couldn't do this on his own. We should by now both be retired and living on his pension and mine. We had thought we had all this covered and had gone without in early years to ensure it was.

I am not telling you this in the hope of reducing you to tears, but to point to the realities that some of us have to live with through no fault of our own. We are in the same position as someone who never bothered to get a pension or savings for their old age, but spent the money on having a good time instead. There is one dramatic difference for us in that scenario and this is just our story, there are many other similar and some worse.

dunstonh

This does not alter the fact that you were even less likely before regulation, to have got all of the information you needed to make an informed choice on your mortgage or pension for that matter. It is, therefore, unfair to exclude these people from the redress being paid to others in exactly the same situation.

If no rules were broken then who is going to pay the money? It is unfair on the adviser as they met the rules.

More comparisons. Lets get every self employed electrician to go back to every house they wired 20 years ago and now rewire it because standards have now changed. They have to cover the costs and pay compensation for the inconvenience. That is what you are asking for.

Crazy_Saver

Retired_I.F.A. wrote: »

PRE 1986 it was assumed people had common sense. Post 1986 it was assumed everyone was an idiot.

That makes me one hell of an idiot!:rolleyes:

treliac

Unwise choice of words Retired IFA. Neither common sense nor idiocy come into it. I have common sense and am certainly not an idiot, although you only have my word for this.

I think you’ve been on the beer again today.

mayb_2

Your not seeing this very clearly are you dunstonh - you have told me that most of the missales were not IFA's but tied salesmen. I don't see their employers going bankrupt over this. Electrical comparisons don't do it for me either I'm afraid, chalk and cheese as they say. Would you prefer the tax payer to pick up the bill for this too dunstonh - like we have with Northern Rock? For instance, if people are getting benefits in their retirement that they wouldn't have needed if their plans were not turned to dust - who picks up that bill?

The reference to the rules is not good enough - this is an I ticked all the boxes mentality - the tick being the important thing. It should have been a matter of integrity not to mislead someone into a misguided belief that they had bought something copper bottomed when in fact it was more like tin foil, whether it was written as a rule or not. It is a lot easier to sell a product if you don't warn people of the risk, but how do you justify that as being ok, because it wasn't written anywhere that you had to tell them? Some made a living whilst not bending unwritten rules of course - perhaps because they really knew what they were talking about and understood the nature of the sale and its importance to the future of the person buying it. Perhaps they can sleep well at night because they had an ethical approach to their work and knew that people's trust in them was justified.

dunstonh

Your not seeing this very clearly are you dunstonh - you have told me that most of the missales were not IFA's but tied salesmen.

I don't think you are seeing it clearly. Salesforces already consider pre 88 complaints voluntarily. Its only IFAs, solicitors and accountants that dont. Most of whom are small local firms.

Would you prefer the tax payer to pick up the bill for this too dunstonh

No. The consumer should. Caveat emptor existed before 88 and so it should remain.

Retired_I.F.A.

Treliac.... you were IMO definitely mis sold and I sincerely hope you get redress. Not that you took out the wrong plan but you did not have it explained to you properly, you did not have an illustration and the many what if questions were never asked or addressed. A honest salesman would have pointed them out yours clearly just rabbited on till you decided signing was the way to get the !!!!! out the house that night. Why though you continued with it still baffles me.

Crazy Saver.... sorry luv but you have already admitted you decided to believe the salesman's verbal g-tee as to what the insurance company would provide rather than the written guarantee you read on the policy. If you get redress good for you but IMO you ought to carry some of the liability yourself.

Mayb.... I 've not found the post describing your case so I've no comment other than please stop congratulating everyone who posts saying they have had redress as you should realise by now the vast majority have jumped on the bandwagon in claiming. Your congratulating more fraudsters than genuine people.

As to who picks up the bill, it's the likes of Dunstonh and myself and millions of policyholders in with profit plans. I've paid my dues to the compensation funds Dunstonh is still paying his and policyholders around the world are suffering because of the fraud encouraged by the regulators.

.I only hope Dunstonh has the sense when he retires to cook his books and declare bankruptcy as thats the only way he can be guaranteed to leave his house to his family when he dies.

And before anyone asks no I'm not a bankrupt, I worked for IFA firms not my own thus I never had the unlimited liability.

mayb_2

Well lucky old lucky old you!!!!!!!!!!! Like I said Retired IFA you would make a great Ombudsman!! In the eyes of the Ombudsmen that is.

mayb_2

If that is the case dunstonh what is your problem with making it something these IFA's solicitors and accountants have to do? Do you have no code of ethics in these professions - if so and everyone stuck to them you and they have nothing to fear?