Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

mayb_2

As a victim of the lies told by a firm to abdicate its responsibility for a missale I would consider your comments to be naieve dunstonh. Why should rebecca say she had been given advice and not be telling the truth? Why must we assume she is lying? If she was so clear cut on what she had bought and a direct sale was made on that basis, why has it taken her so long to get out of an endowment that wasn't working for her?

Was it not you that referred us to the lack of paperwork and records of the sales that were kept at that time and to having being asked yourself to destroy records more than 6 years old? Why then would this company necessarily be so sure that it was a direct sale - they may well have destroyed the records or just not kept records that were adequate.

If the firm lacks paperwork then the ombudsman will find for the customer is something else you have also stated before.
Is there anywhere published records of the numbers of missales accredited to any one company? If not there should be as it would be a pointer as to the way they did business and whether they had a good or bad record on that.

dunstonh

As a victim of the lies told by a firm to abdicate its responsibility for a missale I would consider your comments to be naieve dunstonh. Why should rebecca say she had been given advice and not be telling the truth?

1 - provider says no agent. Mistakes happen but not common
2 - no comission taken. How many sales reps for insurers are not going to take a commission for a sale? Why take on the liaiblity and an extra load of hours work for nothing? a direct application just goes off in the envelope to the provider. 2 minutes work.
3 - signed a form to confirm it was being done on nil commission
4 - rebecca has no evidence to show that it was advice given

Why must we assume she is lying?

Not lying but mistaken. Although she could be lying. A lot of people do try it on.

If she was so clear cut on what she had bought and a direct sale was made on that basis, why has it taken her so long to get out of an endowment that wasn't working for her?

You will have to ask her that but it has no impact on direct offer/execution only/advice basis. Possibly as Pru have never failed to hit target on theirs (and managed around 90% on Scot Am versions). Their projections are usually close to hitting target.

Was it not you that referred us to the lack of paperwork and records of the sales that were kept at that time and to having being asked yourself to destroy records more than 6 years old?

Correct.

Why then would this company necessarily be so sure that it was a direct sale - they may well have destroyed the records or just not kept records that were adequate.

Because there is no sales agent recorded against the sale. All policies record the agency and agent of the sale. Advice records have nothing to do with the processing of the policy. The agency number is used for commission payments, compliance recording, KPI stats for FSA reporting as well as servicing permissions.

If the firm lacks paperwork then the ombudsman will find for the customer is something else you have also stated before

Only on advice cases. On non advice cases there is no paperwork to show so it cant go missing. The policy log shows no agent and no commission paid.

Is there anywhere published records of the numbers of missales accredited to any one company?

No.

If not there should be as it would be a pointer as to the way they did business and whether they had a good or bad record on that.

Doesnt matter if the case was not sold without advice.

Let me make it clear again. If you buy without advice you cannot complain later that the advice given was incorrect as there was no advice. You taken on that responsibility for doing it yourself and in exchange you get a cheaper product.

mayb_2

Your response is based on the assumption that it is rebecca that is 'mistaken' something I do not accept as a given but you do. I believe and I know as fact that the firm I was dealimg with was prepared to alter the 'facts' the paperwork and the truth to win their claim that they had not either missold or churned my policy with them. I also am aware of others that this has happened to. Remember treliac's case and Crazy saver's to name just two? I am not ever going to accept that I was the only one who did not have their case upheld despite the evidence, and will always give a 'response', for what it is worth, based on that knowledge of the possibilities.

I would never accept that you should tell somebody basically not to bother, based on the scanty knowledge that you have of what actually happened. You do not know what happened so such adamant advice should be avoided. As you ensure that people know that you are an IFA your 'advice' is likely to carry more weight and it should be given with caution and with the other options thrown in as well. Your tendency to favour the industry you work within makes this less than unbiased advice.

It is true that older policies are not covered by the new system and it is fair enough to say so. It is fair to give information on the likely value of such policies and their performance.

Rebecca has said that she did take advice on all of her policies and I feel it is only fair to respond on the basis that that is what happened - not to dismiss it out of hand.

dunstonh

You do not know what happened so such adamant advice should be avoided. As you ensure that people know that you are an IFA your 'advice' is likely to carry more weight and it should be given with caution and with the other options thrown in as well. Your tendency to favour the industry you work within makes this less than unbiased advice.

I am not biased. I am not going to be paying a penny out on this case. I am just stating the facts. I have also given advice in plenty of posts on how and what to do with complaints.

You are biased as you assume every one was mis-sold and want everyone to be repaid. You are assuming fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary.

This case is pretty clear. No agent recorded. no commission paid, a signed note from her stating that as well, and recorded as a non-advice case. Facts you choose to ignore.

Rebecca has said that she did take advice on all of her policies and I feel it is only fair to respond on the basis that that is what happened - not to dismiss it out of hand.

She is going to have to prove that because the evidence is stacked up against her.

Perhaps she should give a copy of the factfind or reason why letter she was given. Or a copy the commission disclosure and the illustration that would identify the agent. The name of the adviser who gave the advice we be useful.

She will also need to explain why it is put through on non advice terms,which she signed to agree, and why she now believes advice was given.

Come on, the facts on this stack up so high in the providers favour. Next you will be claiming it was possible litlte green men from Mars changed the paperwork.

mayb_2

I have made my point dunstonh - it is up to rebecca to fight her corner with anything and everything she has. I wish her good luck and a fair wind.

dunstonh

I have made my point dunstonh - it is up to rebecca to fight her corner with anything and everything she has. I wish her good luck and a fair wind.

The only way she stands any chance of winning is to make a fraudulent claim. I assume she wont be doing that but if she does, then I do not wish her luck and I dont think anyone should be encouraged to do so.

danzily

I have two endowments both due to mature within the next month. Both are not going to reach the target OR provide the tax free cash lump sum, due to drop in bonuses. Why is it that we - the tax payer - who have bailed out many financial institutions are also being penalised through a drop in bonuses on endowments. Surely it should be one rule for all. If a bonus is in your contract (as per the banks) and they are paid, then the bonuses on endowments should also be paid as they were in the contract.

dunstonh

Why is it that we - the tax payer - who have bailed out many financial institutions are also being penalised through a drop in bonuses on endowments.

They are investments. Invesmtents have a daily value based on the underlying assets. If the asset value goes down then your investment goes down. If it goes up, your investment goes up.

Being a taxpayer has absolutely nothing to do with it.

As of date, its only the banks that have been part/full nationalised and not many financial institutions and the taxpayer is not fully funding the lot. A great deal fo the money is coming from the FSCS. Other financial services companies have to pay that including those that are not banks.

mayb_2

If you have anything in writing that says how much bonus you will receive on your endowments then you are in a winning situation danzily and can ask that that promise (contract) be honoured. I do hope you do. Without such a statement, unfortunately only those parts of your endowment that should have covered your mortgage repayment can be addressed through the current system. I am totally with you in what you say - however, as you have probably guessed, governments and finance institutions of all types are not.

I will say this once more dunstonh and then I will say no more to you on this particular post. You are assuming that the stance of the company is correct and that rebecca, at your kindest, is 'mistaken' and any claim she would make is fraudulent. Perhaps I am the only one who can see the bias in that statement and the fact that you cannot possibly know that to be the case? I think not.

dunstonh

You are assuming that the stance of the company is correct and that rebecca, at your kindest, is 'mistaken' and any claim she would make is fraudulent. Perhaps I am the only one who can see the bias in that statement and the fact that you cannot possibly know that to be the case? I think not.

4 or 5 things that indicate no advice given. None suggest advice was apart from a belief she sought advice. Going to an office to sign an application form is not advice. Singing to say it was being done on non-advice terms is not advice. That last one is pretty clear evidence. So, if all that evidence means that I am biased then so be it.