Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

treliac

dunstonh wrote: »

Which perhaps highlights that we should stop anyone with a low IQ buying a house.

mayb - we're part of that band of people dunstonh considers to be of low IQ. Says it all I suppose.

dunstonh

treliac wrote: »

mayb - we're part of that band of people dunstonh considers to be of low IQ. Says it all I suppose.

Dont be daft. We have debated this for so long now between us and whilst we have different opinions, I dont view you in any way negatively.

The reference to IQ is that if people cannot understand that they are taking on a monthly payment that can rise, even with the documentation issued gives an example of a payment at a higher rate (and its not hidden in small print but clear to see), then you do have to question their intelligence.

treliac

dunstonh wrote: »

Dont be daft. We have debated this for so long now between us and whilst we have different opinions, I dont view you in any way negatively.

The reference to IQ is that if people cannot understand that they are taking on a monthly payment that can rise, even with the documentation issued gives an example of a payment at a higher rate (and its not hidden in small print but clear to see), then you do have to question their intelligence.

That's not the point you aimed your comment at ...... if we're talking about being daft.

And thanks for the compliment.

mayb_2

Well said treliac - I would agree with every word of that.

I too get sick of hearing how we were opportunistic, fraudulent, greedy and knew exactly what we were doing.

The idea that we also tell lies to achieve our aims is a nonsense in itself. Even when the paperwork shows that lies were told by the sales people the Ombudsman turns a blind eye - if he ignores the proof offered by the consumer - he is not likely to accept a lie from the consumer. There are none so blind as those who will not see. As I said before - a dummy to soothe those who have some conscience about these sales and the financial chaos that followed in their wake.

There is an exception to every rule but the exceptions cannot become the rule. I believe that as a rule these were missold and decisions should be based on the probability that the case meets that rule unless it can be solidly proven otherwise. Decisions cannot be based on what is happening now but must lie in the atomsphere prevailing at the time. Despite the fact that these products had not failed in the past the clients should have had fair warning that the risk existed and what exactly they were buying. As treliac said - you were not offered a choice of mortgage product if the salesman wanted you to buy the best deal for him.

Detest_Lloyds

turbobob wrote: »

I would guess the adjudicator would suggest a calculation on the following formula:

An RU89 comparison over 25 year term of an interest only mortgage vs repayment morgage
Plus A partial refund of premiums (with simple interest at 8%) in respect of the sum assured mis-match
Less the SV at the date of the calculation.

After the initial adjudication, you have the right of appeal to a senior Ombudsman. The Ombudsman may agree with you, or they may not, but they have to consider all of your points.Good luck.

Thanks again TurboBob. I will now let you know the dispute has been through the FOS. After 3 years where an adjudicator firstly agreed with our arguement then disagreed then agreed again and then after the Bank refused to agree with the adjudicator's decision it went to final decision by an Ombudsman who disagreed with us! What a shambles. It's all very odd as I was under the impression that adjudicators were guided by Ombudsmen during cases?

When you say "A partial refund of premiums (with simple interest at 8%) in respect of the sum assured mis-match" can I just clarify what you mean? £160.60/month over 25 years was to cover £105,000 but the sum assured should have been £87,500? So lets say to cover £87,500 should have been £130.60/month the refund should be £360/year for 17 years (approx) + 8% on top of the total? How can I determine what the actual month payment amount should have been to cover £87,500? Sorry but just clarify what "SV" is please.

Crazy_Saver

treliac wrote: »

This is an assumption. I don't know about more recent purchases but I believe you would have been in your early teens when we bought our mortgage and I challenge your assumptions about the sales climate in the mid/late 80s.

Consumers of endowment/pension mortgages at the time, were, with maybe few exceptions, unaware of any potential for problems with the products they bought for the specific purpose of paying their mortgages. I just don't see how that can be contested now.

Given the lack of knowledge of the average house buyer (a first generation of house buyers in many families), they relied on the advice of product salesmen, as we now know them to be - at the time they 'dressed' themselves up as financial advisers.

If you were even offered two methods of paying for your home (and it wasn't in the interests of these salesmen to recommend repayment mortgages) - one might have appeared cheaper re. monthly costs (although I don't believe ours was in fact) - but it was full of promises to not only pay the mortgage but to provide a savings vehicle too, which would give benefits over and above a paid up mortgage. So, which would any buyer have opted for?

As for jumping on any claims bandwagon. It has only been very recently that we have learned of how disadvantaged we were and of our entitlement to claim redress. Clearly, anyone discovering the possibility and realising the extent of mistreatment of their finances that had gone on, would take the opportunity. I don't call that opportunism. The process is not that easy, despite people saying to follow the 'Which' site, or whatever. It is therefore easy to understand why so many have gone through claims companies who, without doubt, have milked the whole scenario for their own purposes.

In fact, our case has now reached its conclusion and I shall be posting on the other thread over the weekend.

Well said treliac:T :T :T

Crazy_Saver

dunstonh wrote: »

Which perhaps highlights that we should stop anyone with a low IQ buying a house.

I am offended by that remark and take it as an insult dunstonh.


Crazy Saver

Crazy_Saver

dunstonh wrote: »

Dont be daft. We have debated this for so long now between us and whilst we have different opinions, I dont view you in any way negatively.

The reference to IQ is that if people cannot understand that they are taking on a monthly payment that can rise, even with the documentation issued gives an example of a payment at a higher rate (and its not hidden in small print but clear to see), then you do have to question their intelligence.

Our documentation did show a shortage of £2000 at the lowest projection rate when we were sold our endowment dunstonh, but the IFA lead us to believe that the figures were for illustration purposes only and we were not to worry as they "just had to show a lower rate". With age and experience behind me, I can't believe that we were so easily persuaded. After all we were both professional people within our own field. Unfortunately our field wasn't finance!

I also can't help thinking that there is a new generation out there who are about to become first time buyers at the new record low interest rates and in a few years will be crippled by the inevitable rise in interest rates. Then everyone will be shocked and will ask how people could have been so gullible!

Oh how history repeats itself;)

mayb_2

I think the example of the FOS shambles is clearly illustrated in the comments made in Detest_Lloyds latest post. You may put your faith in the FOS dunstonh - personally I believe the FSA and the FOS are two sides of the same coin and one is as ineffective in the other when it comes to the consumer and protecting us.

The fact that a 'subprime' market was targeted for selling of mortgage based products, shows that it was the intention of the finance institutions to prey on those least likely to understand the problems of the packages they bought into. So your reference to low IQs is questionable on that basis. The less likely you were to understand the small print the more likely you would fall into the honey trap set by these businesses.

Of course those coming up with these packages in the first place cannot be held responsible for their own actions no matter how qualified and of how high an IQ they are considered to be. No that is left to the tax payer who must bail them out because, poor things, they cannot work it out on their own as they didn't understand the packages they were passing around each other.

I have no idea how high my IQ is or how it compares to dunstonh's or anyone elses. Regardless, I have always had a great deal of common sense and some would describe me as intelligent. I have seen nothing in , Crazy Saver's or treliac's posts that would cause me to question their intelligence either - quite the contrary. Despite this we see ourselves as typical of those who bought these endowment packages and we all assert we would not have done so if we had understood what we had purchased.

So just to make it perfectly clear to anyone with any doubts on this matter. We are not liars, cheats, fraudsters, incompetent or lacking in intelligence. We are also able to debate and explain our positions with clarity and perception. We understand the financial markets far better than we did and we will ensure that we are never caught in such a trap again.

This does not mean that we knew what we were doing then, or that such information was freely available, or that we knew that despite consulting an expert we would not be getting an expert opinion or all of the facts. If believing in the advice given by a Financial Advisor, independent or otherwise, shows low intelligence however, I for one must put my hand up to that.

dunstonh

mayb was on about mortgages crazy saver and my response was with that as well. Not endowments.