Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

mayb_2

Hi Vinno - good to hear your voice again and I entirely agree with Crazy Saver. On one hand we must not be the sort of people that let things go and on the other hand we are even more unlikely to let things go, having experienced our fight for justice on our mortgages.

Crazy Saver I am sure what you describe is exactly what happened with me and my fight for redress on my 'endowment' savings/pension plan. In the end it probably made no difference with this as it was not attached to a mortgage there was absolutely no evidence of how much we were promised it would be worth at term. In line with cherie s d, I found so many contradictions in the statement from the FOS, who actually agreed with the figure that I mentioned as being the most likely projected value at the time of sale!! Should that lead me to the conclusion that if they had not been so convinced of my aforeheld knowledge, they would have allowed the claim?? I will never know.

mayb_2

Cherie s d - it sounds as if it would be worth you challenging the company on the basis on which they arrived at their figures or having the figures themselves checked out by another source. If they refuse to look at this again they should put this in writing and this final letter can be used as the basis for the next step, which is a complaint to the Ombudsman.

If you get some idea what the value of this part of the claim is worth to you, then you have a better idea of whether it is worth pursuing with the FOS. If you are better off with the mortgage itself than you would have been with repayment there is nothing you can do to boost redress. Redress only puts you back into the position you would have been in if you had a repayment mortgage.

Hope this all works out for you.

cherie_s_d

dunstonh wrote: »

If L&G have used the RU89 calculation (which I believe they do now) then there is no point going to the FOS. The complaint has been upheld in your favour so you have won. However, you are not financially worse off and if the calculation is correct (and they should show you the figures used) then the FOS will agree with them.

Not everyone gets redress. Better quality endowments or those with little or no surrender penalties can often result in little or no redress. An endowment can actually be on track to pay off the mortgage using its original target growth rate but still show a shortfall on the annual illustrations. So, you may think its going short and in the future it may do but on the date of calculation it wasnt.

Thanks Dunstonh
I will ask for the figures and if correct will have to let go,( once i get the bit between my teeth this is hard for me to do ) Its just so annoying and frustrating.
Thanks again you have all been brilliant.
Cherie

cherie_s_d

mayb wrote: »

Cherie s d - it sounds as if it would be worth you challenging the company on the basis on which they arrived at their figures or having the figures themselves checked out by another source. If they refuse to look at this again they should put this in writing and this final letter can be used as the basis for the next step, which is a complaint to the Ombudsman.

If you get some idea what the value of this part of the claim is worth to you, then you have a better idea of whether it is worth pursuing with the FOS. If you are better off with the mortgage itself than you would have been with repayment there is nothing you can do to boost redress. Redress only puts you back into the position you would have been in if you had a repayment mortgage.

Hope this all works out for you.

Thanks Mayb,
I will ask for the calculations.
Will keep you all posted on outcome.
Many thanks
Cherie

jo9919

Last week I contacted Zurich, who we have an endowment policy with.

The endowment was originally taken out with Allied Dunbar in 1988, and has four years left to run. We fully expected the endowment to pay off our mortgage and have a lump sum left too, as this is what the Allied Dunbar representative told us would happen when he sold the policy to us.

We have received letters advising us that there may be a shortfall, but I didn't realise that we could do anything about it until I read about this last week on MSE.

Today I have received a letter advising us that Zurich will not be investigating the complaint as they made us aware of the high risk that the plan may not achieve its target amount at maturity in a letter sent in September 2001. They also sent a letter in September 2005 advising us that we had until March 2006 in which to register a complaint. They have enclosed a copy of this letter.

I really didn't realise that we could do anything about this. If I take the matter up with the Ombudsman, what is the likelyhood that we will have a case?

It also states in the letter that if there are exceptional circumstances that stopped us complaining before now, they are happy to consider these. They have given an example of suffering from serious health issues which prevented us from working over a prolonged period during the dates outlined. I did take a year off work between November 2000 and November 2001, during which time the first letter was sent, as I was suffering from Cancer. I can't really see how this would help my claim though.

Any thoughts please?

Thanks,
Jo.

cherie_s_d

Hi Jo,
I think it would help your case as you would have had more important issues to deal with ie your health, and if it states this in your letter then i would say it is a exceptional circumstance, you have nothing to lose by sending a letter to Zurich stating this.

mayb_2

I agree with cherie, Jo. You were obviously missold your policy and you must take every opportunity to put that right. Suffering from Cancer is a serious health and life changing issue and if that is not taken into account I don't really know what would be. The problem is the timing. I think the time bar kicks in three years from the date on which you were warned that the time bar had started - they then have to give you a six month warning letter with a date by which you must complain. This would have been your letter of September 2005. They may claim that something affecting you in the past would not have stopped you from making a claim in 2007. Be careful in the way you word your letter to ensure they understand the affects of this and the fact that you were definately unaware of the risks you took at the time of purchasing your endowment.

Unfortunately if they don't accept your reasons for not acting sooner then there is probably nothing you can do. The time bar has been a life line for these endowment sales companies and they will use it if they can.

I wish you good luck with this.

dunstonh

I really didn't realise that we could do anything about this.

That is not a good enough excuse in the eyes of the FOS as you were told in writing multiple times.

If I take the matter up with the Ombudsman, what is the likelyhood that we will have a case?

The FOS do not overule many at all. Serious health issues could apply but your onw year does not explain the nearly 5 year period you had. If you had good reason to be incapacitated for the whole period then it would get overuled.

You say you had cancer and off work for a year. Does the policy include critical illness cover or waiver of premium benefit?

pwllbwdr

I have an endowment with NU (was CU). I have just for the first time seen the original documentation that the advisor who sold me the policy sent to CU when the application was made. The letter to CU stresses that the "growth rate" should be 7.5%. That was in 1996. Does anybody know whether this was my adviser requesting a lower rate than normal for the premium and projections, or a higher one? What was typical for 1996?

COOKIE007_2

hi mum was sold an endowment 22 years ago it ended up on a shortfall so in 2004 she was advised to do half repayment and half endowment. But in 2007 she had to phone the company who has her endowmant to say they still have her down as £11.000 endowment as this is not the case coz she changed it they said they would sort it out, but the other day she gets a letter from the company saying it is on a shortfall again and it still said £11.000 endowment so she phoned them again and asked why they had her down for £11,000 endowment they said the endowment stays the same even though she did half repayment and half endowment. Now she does not know what to do with the endowment coz she is at retairment age at the end of the year plus her mortgage and endowment finishes in 2013 can anyone please help me

many thanks cookie007