Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

ajm123

i was rejected under the time bar......the copy letters that Winterthur provided the FSA had never arrived and therefore I was unaware. The FSA rule that it can be assumed that the Royal Mail would have delivered the letters.....:mad:

dunstonh

ajm123 wrote: »

i was rejected under the time bar......the copy letters that Winterthur provided the FSA had never arrived and therefore I was unaware. The FSA rule that it can be assumed that the Royal Mail would have delivered the letters.....:mad:

Most people were time barred in 2007 and 2008. Here we are in 2010 and you would have received 9 years of letters showing you a shortfall. Are you saying you didnt get any of those 9 letters? (at least 3 would be in the time bar period but over half would have covered pre time bar.

The mail may miss one but asking them to work on the assumption you didnt get any is pushing it. It is highly unlikely that the time bar will be overruled on that basis.

buel

Hi,
My parents' have had their endownment miselling claim turned down by the Adjudicator due to the fact that they are time barred. My mother explained that quite often we dont receive the the correct post for our rural address in the hills of Wales but didn't go into detail, the adjudicator turned down their claim as Barclays 'word' that they sent two letters (one in 2001 and one in 2005) is apparently good enough! Now, i am writing to the adjudicator again, on their behalf, but this time clarifying the following points regarding the postal probl;ems we suffer:

• There are 25 addresses that share our post code
• There are four extremely similar farm names to ours in the vicinity that share our post code, by this i mean that our farm name is 3 words and the other four farms all use at least one word from our address
• I have at least two neighbours willing to make sworn statements that they have regularly received letters meant for my family, as have we received post meant for them.
• Unbelievably(and i swear this is true), even today we have received a letter for a completely different name and address in our village

Do you think there is a possibility that these points may help the adjudicator look at my parents' case?

Ps- how relevant is it that my dad was unemployed through long term sickness when sold the endownment and that the salesman didn't ask by what means my dad would pay off any excess remaining moneys owing on the mortgage and that it was due to mature after my dad had turned 65?

many thanks in advance-Buel

dunstonh

There are 25 addresses that share our post code

Thats not many compared to other areas.

There are four extremely similar farm names to ours in the vicinity that share our post code, by this i mean that our farm name is 3 words and the other four farms all use at least one word from our address

Not uncommon in rural areas. We get it all the time around here. The postman know this.

I have at least two neighbours willing to make sworn statements that they have regularly received letters meant for my family, as have we received post meant for them.

So, they obviously handed the incorrect post over then. Thats good of them.

Do you think there is a possibility that these points may help the adjudicator look at my parents' case?

No. That is clutching at straws. You are asking the adjudicator to believe your parents havent had statements for the last decade, or if they did, they didnt get the ones with the time bar warnings. One may go missing but all of them?

Ps- how relevant is it that my dad was unemployed through long term sickness when sold the endownment and that the salesman didn't ask by what means my dad would pay off any excess remaining moneys owing on the mortgage and that it was due to mature after my dad had turned 65?

None at all. Indeed, it actually supports the use of endowment as endowments are not included in benefits means tests. The age 65 thing isn't that important nowadays due to consumer abuse years ago. As long as its not too many years later its not a problem.

The FOS are fairly strong in supporting the timebar. Typically, they only overrule in cases which are clear cut.

For future reference, its considered bad form to post your messages over multiple threads. Stick to one thread. Not three.

mayb_2

Hi Buel

I know I have replied on the other thread but felt that I should address some of the comments made above.

Firstly two out of 25 people handing over post means that 23 people may not have done. I did not get sent statements regarding an endowment for many years and the Ombudsman ignored that fact, even though the company didn't claim that they had been sent to me.

However, regarding the age thing then I think dunstonh is wrong in saying that it isn't important nowdays due to consumer abuse years ago. What sort of abuse was that - you were either incorrectly sold a policy that extended into retirement and so made a claim of misselling based on that fact, or you weren't sold such a policy at all. How can it not be a problem if you haven't got an income with which to fund paying an endowment policy no matter how few years this applies to?

Not that it means that the Ombudsman will not take the same view as dunstonh - I do not have faith that this system is put there to benefit the man in the street. This is a Government body and we all saw how they treated the bankers, who we now all have to subsidise for their bad practices. Apparently a lot of those in charge didn't understand what it was they were investing in - despite being paid enormous sums of money to oversee this. The man in the street however, is 'lying' if he says he didn't understand that what he had purchased had a risk of not paying out at the end of term and trusted the 'expert' selling the policy.

As you have had a response from an Adjudicator you can write to ask that it is reviewed by the Ombudsman - you have that right but do ensure he is made aware of the new grounds that you will be referring to regarding age and income.

The time bar is one of those get out of jail free cards that were handed to the Financial services industry to help them get out of paying for their past mistakes. Obviously the Ombudsman will help out as much as he can in supporting this legal right to ignore the problems of joe public in dealing with financial issues they do not properly understand.

buel

Thanks for the help 'mayb', i do appreciate it you know! Why does dunstonh have to post his replies in an annoying way? ie-'So, they obviously handed the incorrect post over then. Thats good of them.'

mayb_2

Search me buel, it costs nothing to assume that people posting here are genuine and so are their questions and concerns. After all the site is for consumers to find answers to their problems. I certainly hope that you get your claim upheld.

dunstonh

buel wrote: »

Why does dunstonh have to post his replies in an annoying way? ie-'So, they obviously handed the incorrect post over then. Thats good of them.'

You have a choice. I can either respond in a cuddly way agreeing with you, even when you are wrong, and give you false hope. Or I can respond in the way that may not agree with you but at least its the truth.

I have made plenty of posts supporting people in their claims but your comments are clutching at straws at the moment. It is possible one of them could work but the odds at the moment, based on what you have said, are low.

mayb_2

IMHO If we all decided in advance that our prospects of sucess were low none of us would have got redress. It appears that at times persistence pays off - it may be annoying to some people if a case is pursued beyond the first rejection but it can mean the difference between getting redress for a missale or not.

When you are convinced that you were missold the sense of injustice is strong. After all, no matter the circumstances, it is Joe Public who is paying for the mistakes of the finance industry - who appear to be able to come out on top no matter what they get up to. We are paying dearly in terms of our financial security with missold mortgages and underperforming pensions, not to mention the latest banking crisis which is negatively affecting all but the bankers themselves. Many of those missold mortgages are also coming up to retirement age - so a double whammy for them.

This forum is about helping each other out not puting each other down and even bad news can be delivered in an empathetic way and so be less likely to give offence. None of us can say for certain how somebody else's case is going to be handled and while there is any chance of succeeding it should be pursued and all avenues investigated towards that aim.

dunstonh

IMHO If we all decided in advance that our prospects of sucess were low none of us would have got redress.

Quite probably true. Most endowment complaints which resulted in payout were not upheld as bad advice but paid out because the documentation was missing or incomplete or not laid out correctly. So, a good many people not strictly entitled to redress got lucky. It allowed dishonest people to get redress.

We are paying dearly in terms of our financial security with missold mortgages and underperforming pensions

there are not many mis-sold mortgages and the consumer has to take a lot of the blame there. Historically (pre regulation) the broker was seen as the person to get you the mortgage whatever. That was what the consumer wanted and that is what they got. Post regulation that continued to some extent as the culture didnt change. I have heard comments from people that called one mortgage adviser bad when they couldnt get a mortgage sorted but another one good because he found a way to get the mortgage. The first one was compliant, the second one not but the first one was perceived as the bad broker even though it was the other way round.

Pensions dont over perform or underperform. They dont perform at all. They are just a tax wrapper. A container for investments. Its the investments that perform. If you invest in investments that havent done well then you may think its underperforming but usually its because of short term issues and a lack of understanding of what is going on.

None of us can say for certain how somebody else's case is going to be handled and while there is any chance of succeeding it should be pursued and all avenues investigated towards that aim.

You are right. There is the element of unknown. However, you do know how the time bar operates and you do know the sorts of things that the FOS consider acceptable to overrule it and things they dont. Things like not getting 10 years worth of statements when the address is correct are not going to succeed as there is the acceptance that whilst the odd envelope may go missing, the odds of so many failing are remote.