Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

mayb_2

I am afraid my own experience of the FSA has not resulted in my having much confidence in them to support me. The fact that someone is regulated by the FSA is not in itself a reason for confidence. If the FSA/FSCS is not protecting you against fraud then I should imagine an unauthorised person should be held responsible under the law of the land. Fraud is a criminal offence surely. If not for the FSA and the FSCS more people might go to court over these matters - as it is, this is a sort of safety net for finance companies. I am not sure that is a good thing in the long run, as people finding that their case is not upheld would be reluctant to risk losing in the court no matter how strong their case. The development of case law would make it clearer how and if your case would succeed in court.

It is unlikely that the man in the street would know that the FSA had fined this or that company in the past - if he did, and perhaps those companies should be forced to advertise the fact, - he might be wary of dealing with them in the future. Unless you happen to be the sort of person who would trawl through the FSA site to see what is going on with different firms, this remains something between the FSA and the firm involved. Is the company caught in a misdemeanour by the FSA and sanctioned, then required to contact all of the customers who may have been affected and recompense them for instance? No - as in the Bank charges fiasco, they will not pay out unless you put your individual case in front of them and they uphold it. This must save them thousands. It is often the less able to understand finances who are most likely to be owed money and less likely to be able to claim it back.

Of course, as I know to my own cost, the FSA will not release information which could be used against the company in a court of law. Whilst that caveat remains in place it isn't always possible to find out what action has been taken with regards to a Company and its unethical behaviour. Another system for protecting the financial big boys from the effects of their bad behaviour. That in itself is a contradiction in law. Why is that allowed under the Freedom of Information Act I wonder?

walmergreen

Interesting stuff.

quote:
"The FSCS do not place as great a value on suitability on the balance of probability as the FOS do."

Quote:
"The system is flawed as it allows the bad to get away with it but penalises the good."

I consider that unsuitability of the product is the greatest mis-sell of all. I also think that the middle nett income crowd who might be worse off with regard to accessing advice post 2009, will flock to the internet as suggested previously. Market forces will dictate a healthy discounting, and financial savvy investors will be looking and seeking advice via the WWW. OK, some of that advice may not be worth the computer screen it is written on, but they will also be savvy enough I feel, to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

What happens if you purchase a financial product on the internet in the future which originates from Germany or France, and just may have better protection that we have within the UK.

In 1988 we had none of this, what might the purchasing consumer have at his/her disposal in 10 years time?

dunstonh

What happens if you purchase a financial product on the internet in the future which originates from Germany or France, and just may have better protection that we have within the UK.

You get less protection on purchases you make yourself. Execution only or direct to provider carries little or no FOS protection (you only have misrepresntation of facts or where the provider has crossed the line into advice as the things you can complain about).

Under MiFID rules (introduced Nov 07), there is an EU standard on who can sell financial products to consumers in EU countries. The FSA is finding itself being overuled more frequently by EU rules nowadays.

With the courts being used more and the EU taking a bigger role, the FSA could end up being largely sidelined in the long term.

dreamylittledream

walmergreen wrote: »

Interesting stuff.

quote:
"The FSCS do not place as great a value on suitability on the balance of probability as the FOS do."

Quote:
"The system is flawed as it allows the bad to get away with it but penalises the good."

I consider that unsuitability of the product is the greatest mis-sell of all. I also think that the middle nett income crowd who might be worse off with regard to accessing advice post 2009, will flock to the internet as suggested previously. Market forces will dictate a healthy discounting, and financial savvy investors will be looking and seeking advice via the WWW. OK, some of that advice may not be worth the computer screen it is written on, but they will also be savvy enough I feel, to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

What happens if you purchase a financial product on the internet in the future which originates from Germany or France, and just may have better protection that we have within the UK.

In 1988 we had none of this, what might the purchasing consumer have at his/her disposal in 10 years time?

Mis-selling complaints are fundamenatally based on suitability or rather un-suitability.

You only have a claim really if the policy you were sold was not a suitable recommendation for your needs at the time.

On endowments this boils down to on a simplistic sense to were you willing to accept a risk with the repayment of your mortgage in return for the possibility of a lump sum at the end of the term?

My point about the FSCS is aside from some very simplistic risk based questions, they do not attempt to reconstruct a complainants attitude to risk from the time of the sale, unlike the FOS.

Thus the FOS frequently rejects complaints, where even in the absence of evidence, they believe that the policy was suitable for the complainants risk profile (that they have re-created themselves through conjecture).

The FSCS very rarely do this.

Of course on the flipside the FSCS do everything thing in their power to minimise the actual level of comepnsation paid and follow thier own guidance rather than that recommended by the FOS with regard to redress methodology.

mayb_2

Its all a right can of worms isn't it!!!!! Quite agree with you walmergreen - safer to do it yourself using all the info you can lay your hands on. Doesn't help with the lack of time now to put things right before retirement hits does it. It is hardly a healthy market out there now, whichever way you look at it.

Crazy_Saver

dreamylittledream wrote: »

The FSCS do not place as great a value on suitability on the balance of probability as the FOS do.
quote]

"The Balance of Probabilities" If I had a pound for every time the FOS have used this quote with me, I'd probably be a rich woman!;)

Thanks dreamylittledream.

Retired_I.F.A.

"

With the courts being used more and the EU taking a bigger role, the FSA could end up being largely sidelined in the long term."

Hope I'm stiill around to see the day.

Regulate the solicitors and barristers as they all charge way too much, give legal aid to far more than those entitled to it now and let the law deal with it rather than the idiots in the FSO and we will all see real justice in fines, redress and compensation based on proof not opinion.

Mind I'd still vote for anyone who gets us out of Europe.;)

mayb_2

Me too Crazy Saver and I would be able to give up swearing altogether! They will probably soon have it put on a stamp and just get the office junior to address the letter and stamp it. Saves all that time spent in reading and thinking after all and so much cheaper too!

Marmadukecat

I hope I am asking this question in the right thread.

Do I complain in the first instance to the company who the endowment is with or do I need to track down the firm of IFAs who we consulted?

I ask as I believe the IFAs are no longer trading.

I think I can safely say I am a little confused at present.

mayb_2

Yes right place Marmaduke cat - I am sure someone will be able to point you in the right direction. For what its worth, when I was claiming on my mortgage endowment I went to the company as the 'estate agent advisor' who had sold us the mortgage was no longer trading. The company was very helpful and on completion of our application form paid us redress at the going rate and it was all done and dusted with no problems.

Not sure if that was the normal route but perhaps it is worth a try - think it might depend on when you bought it. Before 88 then you may have to go to the FSCS as mentioned in recent posts.