Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

dunstonh

The endowment cannot be changed as that would be tax rules. (it needs to have at least 10 years at the end of the policy where premiums are not changed).

If she asked her lender to switch half the mortgage to repayment basis then they should have acted on that. So, she needs to check the lender has done it. Not the endowment provider.

COOKIE007_2

my mum's endowment is on a shortfall so she changed it to halr repayment and half endowment but yet again to is on a shortfall in the 22years of haveing the endowment for £11,000 she still owe's £8,000 and odd and the shortfall is £3,000 and odd and she is at retirement age at the end of the year and endowment matures in 2013. would really like some help with what to do next with the endowment.
many thanks cookie007

rebecca1

I recently wrote to Scottish Mutual (now Phoenix Life) about being mis sold a policy in 1988.
they have looked into it and to my dismay said that the joint policy was only signed by my husband and therfore invalid They have cancelled it and would refund all the premiums we have paid plus interest.

I find it unbelievable that this has NOW come to light - supposing something had happened to me, would that have meant they would not have paid out They have been sending the red letters to me on an invalid policy!!!

THis still does not address the mis-selling angle - is it worth taking up with the FSO and waiting at least 6 months for an outcome?

Any other advice?

Thanks
Rebecca

dunstonh

THis still does not address the mis-selling angle

Doesnt matter. You have a result. The policy being voided and premiums plus interest is not a bad outcome. This method is typically used for pre-sold endowments and other areas where voiding the policy is the right requirement.

I find it unbelievable that this has NOW come to light - supposing something had happened to me, would that have meant they would not have paid out They have been sending the red letters to me on an invalid policy!!!

If it would have happened and it showed that you should have been on there and you were not then they would have had to pay out.

is it worth taking up with the FSO and waiting at least 6 months for an outcome?

Delays at the FOS are closer to 18-20 months.

There is a good chance that it wasnt even sold by Scot Mut as many of theirs were sold by agents, accountants and solicitors. Do you know if yours was? I am thinking of the 29th April 1988 date for FOS complaints.

mayb_2

What a mess rebecca. I find it strange that having known of your existence and having sent you letters regarding this policy they now find it didn't include you!!! I don't believe it - do you? Have you seen a copy of this agreement - do you have one? Do you remember signing anything? Perhaps you should ask for copies of all the paperwork. Is the amount of interest equivalent or better than the amount of redress you may have got if this missale was upheld?

Presuming they are regulated by the FSA I would be tempted to lodge a complaint with the FSA and see what they have to say about it.

If dunstonh is right about the lack of regulation in 1988 affecting your ability to claim, does this mean you cannot complain to the FSA about the actions of the company now?

You are obviously not happy so if you can complain then you should do so - you should also ask someone independent to assess your situation with regards to the amount you are being paid.

I hope you are able to take this up and wish you luck with the result - you never know the amount being offered, for whatever reason they have given, may be all you would get anyway.

mayb_2

I am wondering if anybody else has noticed the attempt to take RBS to court in America, so that those investing in the bank can get their money back as the Bank failed to disclose some relevant information at 'point of sale'.

Am I alone in being gobsmacked by the assumption that these people were not aware of taking a risk in their investment into anything relying on stocks and share values?

Why were those of us who were missold our endowment policies - as it is highly likely most of them were missold - assumed to have had knowledge of what we were doing and the risk attached? It was not spelt out anywhere and we have paid the price for this. We have had to attempt to prove that we didn't know - these people can just say they didn't understand the full implications of their investment and off to court they go - no win no fee.

I shall watch the results of that with interest especially as it is we, the tax payers, who will be funding the return of investments if these people should win.

One rule for the rich and one for the rest of us it would appear.

dunstonh

Presuming they are regulated by the FSA I would be tempted to lodge a complaint with the FSA and see what they have to say about it.

The FSA dont review consumer complaints. They would just note it and forward it on to the insurer who would in turn forward it on to the advising company if it wasnt them.

If dunstonh is right about the lack of regulation in 1988 affecting your ability to claim, does this mean you cannot complain to the FSA about the actions of the company now?

As you cant complain to the FSA anyway, it doesnt matter. However, if the transaction being complained about occurred (potentially - as we are guessing at this stage) before 29th April 1988 then it wouldnt be covered. As the policy has been voided and no claim was ever made, its one of those "what if" questions that will never be able to be answered. They would turn round and say they would have honoured it (assuming it was their error) and you have no proof otherwise. As no financial loss has occured you wouldnt be entitled to anything and as Scot Mutual are no longer open for new business and are in wind down there is nothing to be gained from a complaint that would benefit anyone else.

The only avenue for complaint after the firm has ruled is with the FOS and thats a long slog at the moment thanks to the PPI claims.

Is the amount of interest equivalent or better than the amount of redress you may have got if this missale was upheld?

It sounds like the policy is being voided and refund of premiums plus interest is the correct method for voiding a plan. A repayment mortgage complaint would typically fall under RU89 and have a different calculation. Without knowing what the complaint reason was, its hard to say at this stage what is right.

mayb_2

The complaint would be the way the company decided to void the policy. The money spent on that and returned now, is not worth the same amount as when it was paid in and could have been used another way. It must have been wrongly done to be able to be voided - it is not the customer who is asking for this to be the way this is dealt with and some communication as to the best way forward would have been just good manners if nothing else. This is not necessarily the best outcome for the customer and if not it can be a reason for complaining to the Ombudsman.

You can complain to the FSA - I have done this and had my complaint addressed by them.

The Ombudsman would be the place to take a complaint once you have decided that the response received regarding the initial complaint of misselling is not one you agree with and you wish to have this investigated again.

dunstonh

You can complain to the FSA - I have done this and had my complaint addressed by them.

They will take information but they dont act on it with the exception of a few areas. They will just pass it on.

mayb_2

They will pass it on and if the company does not act upon the complaint they will take it up with that company and they can take action where there is a breach of the regulations - they are not just acting as a sorting office for your bits of paper. They have a duty to uphold the standards they set for the companies they regulate.