Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

danzily

Thanks for your reply. I have the original literature stating that "the policy is designed to repay the mortgage at maturity AND provide a tax fee cash sum". I also have a letter from the Norwich Union giving me an exact figure although it does say "on the current bonus rates" and that was in 1983!
I am considering taking legal action if the NU don`t pay up, especially if, as I have read on these pages, they don`t pay up when they should and I get charged additional interest.
I think it is time the consumer stood their ground and joined forces to tackle these organisations who make billions of pounds from us. I am prepared for a fight. I believe in standing by your word and if any self employed sole trader quoted a figure or a statement, they would be held accountable!:mad:

mayb_2

As your policy was taken out in 1083 it is pre regulation and you cannot complain in the usual way through the ombudsman, as I understand it. If you decide to go the legal route then you may well incur high expenses. If you feel you have enough evidence then perhaps you should take legal advice on this before going ahead to ensure you understand the risks involved. You may go no win no fee but be aware that that does not necessarily cover you for costs for the other side if you lose the case. Check the small print and ask questions first as it would be a great shame to lose out over this twice.

If it was for less than £5000 you could take advantage of the small claims court at no cost to yourself - I have a feeling this wont cover it for you.

It may be worth contacting the FSA for advice on how best to proceed with this. At least you wont be charged for that and it wont comit you to any action either.

Good luck.

mayb_2

ps danzily have you actually contacted the firm and presented them with this complaint? If so how did they respond?

Crazy_Saver

dunstonh wrote: »

Nothing by the sounds of it. Or perhaps an instant holiday was in order or perhaps you are drowning your sorrows and in no fit state to post

Right first time dunstonh

Waited till yesterday and when I'd still heard nothing, I e-mailed the adjudicator.

Reply was:

Thank you for your e-mail.

I have received both yours and the firm's response to my adjudication. As both parties did not accept my view, I have passed your file to the ombudsman who will consider both yours and the firm's submissions prior to the decision being issued.

I trust this answers your query.

Looks like another year of waiting:mad:

I did e-mail the adjudicator back last night to ask about his offer to consider the change in redress calculation and I'll let you know when he replies.

dunstonh

Looks like another year of waiting:mad:

You are not kidding. They are so snowed under with PPI complaints that all complaints aer taking much longer. They ought to have a filter system in place so PPI complaints get handled differently to other complaints. Genuine or more pressing complaints shouldnt be held up by people trying to get money back because of loopholes.

mayb_2

hmm here we go again!!

I think you will find that the large number of recent claims has come from the fact that the three year rule was applied. If this had not happened then lots of people would not have been claiming all at once. The Ombudsman service had to take on lots more employees to deal with this and still there is a backlog. As you have said yourself these will soon cease as the rule will exclude all claims from the system.

I suggest that not everyone accepts the first rejection either and actions their rights to have this passed to the Ombudsman for another look.

I presume that the ability to tell immediately the difference between a genuine claim and one where people are 'trying to get money back because of loopholes' is a skill only you possess dunstonh. Other people have to investigate the claims before coming to any conclusion and then still manage to get it wrong as many know to their cost.

Let us hope justice prevails for you Crazy Saver and in double quick time too.

dunstonh

I think you will find that the large number of recent claims has come from the fact that the three year rule was applied.

I wasnt aware that PPI claims had a three year rule. You cant be referring to endowments and that 3 year rule as most endowment time bars kicked in during 2007. The FOS and FSCS both reported that they had seen a reduction in workload due to endowments but had seen increases in PPI.

I presume that the ability to tell immediately the difference between a genuine claim and one where people are 'trying to get money back because of loopholes' is a skill only you possess dunstonh.

You are so naive. You think every person is genuine. I suggest you take a look in the PPI reclaim section. Its full of posts from people asking if they can reclaim. Even people that have claimed and been paid out on are asking. The system is allowing people to put claims in valid or not and as there was no advice involved on these there is no documentation to really prove anything otherwise. Its open season to get your money back. You have to feel sorry for those with genuine complaints who have found that rather than take a couple of months to get resolved, they are taking a couple of years.

mayb_2

I think if you add the two years backlog to 2007 claims you will find it brings us to 2009 - which has only just started. I think that makes me right on that point dunstonh.

I also think that if it is naieve to believe the system is not set up to benefit the claimant then I have to put my hands up to that one too. So far you find me naieve and too stupid to be allowed to buy a house, I also have to infer that as I didn't win my case for a missold and churned endowment policy I must also have been just trying it on (best case) or lying (worst case).

I don't think there are many people who have put in a claim for a missale whether successful or not who would appreciate your take on these things. Unless of course like you they work for the other side. If you insist on getting your information from the industry I think you may find that it would take that view every time. I am not sure I am the naieve one here.

I am also sure that if anybody following recent news believes that the finance industry is squeeky clean and always tells it like it is, they are also being very naieve. The whole thing is coming apart and ending the claims process will only store up trouble for the future for the finance industry, no matter how useful it is to these companies now.

dunstonh

I think if you add the two years backlog to 2007 claims you will find it brings us to 2009 - which has only just started. I think that makes me right on that point dunstonh.

I prefer to go by what the FOS and FSCS say as they know their workload.

lin_ho

help

can anyone please advice. our case is a mess. we have -
Mortgage1 - normal endowment mortgage at 65k. Property sold in 2001 and mortgage repaid but balance was 80k due to reasons we do not know. my guess is we were charged higher rates then were advised for the early years and they were added to balance.
The redress offered has a dateline running out in couple of days. I have been trying to get someone to assist and am still waiting for their reply. I have written back to say that the figure is not right because – they used the guaranteed amount on death – for calculation while we borrowed 65k but looks like they ignore this. we have paid off 80k balance outstanding as property was sold. My logic is they should use 65k in their repayment mortgage calculation and redress due should be 80k paid less the repayment balance it should be. Is this correct? They ignored or not aware? 80k paid. One year after selling we surrendered the endowment. We still have a mortgage because

Mortgage2 – while having the first endowment mortgage we had a business and was advised to have a pension endowment for the shop. after 4 years we sold shop and business due to health and moved to a house nearby.

Mortgage3 advised again was a pension mortgage – we had for 4 years then increased borrowing and they changed all to repayment then and 1 year after, the pension plan started. but last year due to affordability I had to change back to interest only and looks like there’s no chance of paying off anything at our age.

Pension plan + mortgage2 for shop has 3 loans for term of 20 years. Should the calculations use the secured loans on the pension only? I am waiting a breakdown of redress figures still and the redress is for the next residential house mortgage we moved into for 17k as that’s the balance before changing to repayment.

When shop was sold we also paid off the mortgage and my calculations suggest to me that if we had a repayment mortgage we would have no need for the next mortgage as total payments amounts to almost 17k. Also I note in their calculations they use terms as 21 years and for next mortgage as 16 years 11 months when it should be 20 years and 16 years per agreement. Is this normal practice? pension redress offer is very small.

Any advice appreciated. thanks