Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

dunstonh

Scottish Mutual for £6250.00 taken out 28.06.1988
I wrote to Scottish Mutual and they said there was no selling agent for this policy - does this mean that I have no one to claim against so I can't make a claim? I do seem to remember sitting in an office being given advice from somebody!!

It means that there was no adviser involved in the sale of the policy or no agent exists for it. As its pre August 1988 you dont have FSCS protection so you cannot complain to anyone.

Scottish Mutual for £48,750.00 taken out 09.12.1986
This was taken out by one of their selling agents, Scottish Mutual say they do not hold an address for this agent - I called the FSA this morning to track tem down and they ceased trading in 2004 - does this mean I can't take any action even against Scottish Mutual? Also, as I took the policy out before 29 April 1988 it was unregulated so can't claim anyway?

You cannot take any action against Scot Mut as they didnt give you any advice. As it was taken out pre regulation then its not covered for complaints.

Scottish Amicable (now Pru) for £70,000.00 on 1st January 1992
I wrote to Scottish Amicable in 2004 and expressed my concern over mis-selling, filled in one of their questionaire forms and they replied saying that as I did not request or receive advice from a rep of S/A signed a form to confirm this and no commission was paid in respect of this sale - they are unable to uphold my complaint. Is it possible for me to take this further with the Financial Service Ombudsman and will I get anywhere.

You bought this contract without advice and therefore you cannot complain about the advice. So, they are correct to refuse.

So, all three of these are no goes. It is not the companies that have the endowments that are liable for the plans unless one of their agents sold it under advice. When you complain you are complaining about the advice given. The endowment providers didnt give you any advice so they have no liability for it. So, in case 3 (And possibly 1) no advice was given so you cant complain to anyone other than yourself. Case 2 is pre regulation so no go there. Case 1 could be no advice given or if not, its pre FSCS protection anyway so no go.

End of the road for these.

rebecca1

Thanks DunstonH

I read back over some of these threads and saw that some people had posted their 'success stories ' when they had opened endowments pre Apr 1988. Thought I had missed something!

Rebecca

rebecca1

DunstonH

Case 1, I believe the magic date ws 29 Apr 1988 therefore I am covered by the FSCS. Agree?

Rebecca

dunstonh

I read back over some of these threads and saw that some people had posted their 'success stories ' when they had opened endowments pre Apr 1988. Thought I had missed something!

If they were sold by the sales rep of the insurer then the pre April 88 date doesnt apply. Yours were not.

Case 1, I believe the magic date ws 29 Apr 1988 therefore I am covered by the FSCS. Agree?

No. The FOS come in to effect for applications signed after 29th April 1988 but that applies only to companies that are still open for business. For companies that have closed down you have to apply for FSCS protection and that came into effect on 28th August 1988.

http://www.fscs.org.uk/consumer/how_to_claim/investments/help_with_your_claim/

mayb_2

rebecca one thing that struck me about all this is how did you buy your endowments without advice? Does that mean you understood the markets and therefore were able to take that decision on your own? Did you ask for the literature and then use the information published to decide for yourself? I am not sure you can have a case for a missale if you bought it for yourself without advice regardless of the date you bought it as nobody influenced that decission.

There is one thing though, if your paperwork for the last one showed that you were promised a certain sum of money then it is part of a contract with that company. Small claims court if not ombudsman etc as it must constitute a breach of contract I would have thought, if you are not now to receive that sum of money and the contract is directly with the endowment provider.

If this is the case with all of the endowments I can't see why they would not all constitute a breach of contract either. I am sure someone will post on here if my thinking is completely off beam - it wont be the first time that logic has nothing to do with the law.

rebecca1

Mayb

Appreciate your comments. I first took advice from a selling agent for Scottish Mutual, the agent ceased trading in 2004. I then moved house and took another endowment out with Scottish Mutual directly - but I still remember that I went to there offices and went through the motions and all the chats and signed for the endowment. They informed me that their records show that there was no selling agent for this policy.

Then when I took the 3rd endowment out with Scottish Amicable (now Pru) I am once again sure that I took advice before I signed on the bottom line.
This may be difficult to prove in every case though. Although with the first endowment it appears that I can't claim as it was taken out pre 1988!!!

I know that off the record was given for no2 and no3 and definately given by the selling agent originally!!!

I remember in particular the sales person really selling the 'with profits' endowment. This is all SO annoying and frustrating !!!

rebecca1

mayb

Sorry, my mail last but one sentence in oreviou mail should have read:

I know that off the record ADVICE was given for no2 and no3 and definately given by the selling agent originally!!! :rolleyes:

Thanks
Rebecca

dunstonh

but I still remember that I went to there offices and went through the motions and all the chats and signed for the endowment.

doesnt mean you got advice. If you request a product and purchase it then it can be processed as execution only. Particulary common transaction for people who know what they want. Often coincides with a discount in product terms to reflect the lower consumer protection you get.

Then when I took the 3rd endowment out with Scottish Amicable (now Pru) I am once again sure that I took advice before I signed on the bottom line.

If so, why was it arranged with no cost of advice taken? (i.e. commission) and why was it recorded as execution only (no adviser/agent). No adviser is going to take on the liability of advice and spend 4 or 5 hours work and not get paid for it.

mayb_2

I would sugest a thorough search to see if you can find any paperwork you have overlooked for these sales. Can you remember where it was you went and track it back from there. It must have been sold to you by someone and if not an agent to be found by the company, it must have been a direct sale by them. So they would be the people who mislead you?? Perhaps you should ask them if they have any paper records themselves to copy it to you. There should be a risk assessment somewhere for the third one at least and this should have asked and answered questions relevant to assess your attitude to risk and therefore guaging the suitability of an endowment for your attitude to risk taking. Challenge these people as to who sold you this mortgage - someone set it up for you and paperwork should be with them and with you.

Best of luck.

dunstonh

It must have been sold to you by someone and if not an agent to be found by the company, it must have been a direct sale by them.

If someone walked in the branch office and asked for a product, it didnt need an adviser to sign off on it. It would just be sent off by that branch for processing as no agent. That reflects what is being told back.

Perhaps you should ask them if they have any paper records themselves to copy it to you.

They dont need any records as no advice was given, no advice documentation needed to be issued. Think of it as having an application in front of you now, completing it and popping it in the post to them. Thats the extent of it.

There should be a risk assessment somewhere for the third one at least and this should have asked and answered questions relevant to assess your attitude to risk and therefore guaging the suitability of an endowment for your attitude to risk taking.

There shouldnt be a risk assessment as that is something done by an adviser. No adviser was involved. No assessment for suitability or risk profile was needed to be done on non advised sales.

Challenge these people as to who sold you this mortgage - someone set it up for you and paperwork should be with them and with you.

There is no-one to challenge. People that buy without advice cannot complain about advice when no advice is given. Its no different to what people are doing now on this site when they read Martins articles and see xyz company mentioned and decide to buy that direct. You get it a bit cheaper maybe but you cut down on your consumer protection. Which? (consumers association) used to recommend endowments and told people to buy Standard Life plans and how to get it cheaper by bypassing advice channels. Those people cannot complain. Ironically they cant use a Which? template to complain to Which?

Its not the product or the processing of the product you are complaining about. It is the advice. No advice means no complaint.