Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

mayb_2

No magpie it actually said that and yes I have been there and got the t shirt and redress or no redress I do not think I was in the position I would have been in if I had a repayment mortgage from the outset because different financial decisions would have been made over the period of time we had that endowment. I think you have little understanding of how these things were sold and the average knowledge then and now of the people they were sold to. I think it is a total cop out to suggest that endowment selling and subprime were different things because both were examples of selling people mortgages they didn't understand and, with subprime, definately couldn't afford once the initial low interest stage was over. These subprime packages were then sold on to other financial institutions wrapped up in such a way that the likely bad debts were buried beyond recognition and became toxic.

'watered down' or not the time bar was brought in on these claims to help the FSA to ensure that it complied with one of its remits of the time - which was to protect the financial industry from lack of confidence -. I did not say it was invented for the purpose by the FSA or dispute when they came into existence. You are not really looking at what I have said, which is that it is a 'legal' get out of jail free card produced to help the financial industry escape the affect of its actions.

The red light system was not in operation from day one of these things as you would know - it was introduced once the claims really started to role in.

The misselling of PPI was followed by a requirement for the seller to contact the buyer and make good the missale - the much bigger responsibility of misselling an endowment and the buyer is the person left to find their way round a minefield of a claims system. Many people on here would give testament to how unsiimple that was and how often they were refused on first request and had to pursue their redress through the ombudsman service etc.

Even the Chairman of the FSA agreed at one point that once it was realised these endowment mortgages could not possibly cover their targets they were still being sold, as large comissions were about to disappear once the cat got out of the bag!

magpiecottage

mayb wrote: »

I think you have little understanding of how these things were sold and the average knowledge then and now of the people they were sold to.

Actually I have a great deal of understanding (and I have the certificates to prove it).

I think it is a total cop out to suggest that endowment selling and subprime were different things because both were examples of selling people mortgages they didn't understand

I say they are different because it is true. People may, or may not have understood them but it is still true.

and, with subprime, definately couldn't afford once the initial low interest stage was over.

That is a risk the lender took as well. They know that they will lose out if the borrower cannot meet repayments so they will underwrite the loan.

It is possible that interest rates may rise - but that has not generally happened for some years.

It is possible that the borrower lost their job - in which case, ironically, PPI would have assisted, but it it not the fault of the person selling the mortgage.

It is possible the borrower took on further debt - but it is not the fault of the person selling the mortgage.

It is possible the borrower lied about their income. That is fraud. The person selling the mortgage may, or may not, have been complicit in the fraud but it is the borrower who signed the form knowing it was incorrect.

These subprime packages were then sold on to other financial institutions wrapped up in such a way that the likely bad debts were buried beyond recognition and became toxic.

That is a due diligence issue for the lenders, not the borrowers. (or at least it should have been if the government had not been forced to bail them out).

the time bar was brought in on these claims to help the FSA to ensure that it complied with one of its remits of the time - which was to protect the financial industry from lack of confidence

The timebar was not "brought in" - it was already there. Like anybody else, a financial adviser is entitled to avail himself of it and has been ever since it was introduced.

In reality, the FSA has acted to ensure that a financial adviser has LESS rights than anybody else to rely on a time bar.

You are not really looking at what I have said

Yes I am - and it is wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you say it or how many times I read it, it is still wrong, for the reasons I have given.

The red light system was not in operation from day one of these things as you would know

No it wasn't. it was put in to give consumers ample warning that they needed to get a move on if they wanted to complain. If it was a solicitor, or an accountant or an architect or a chartered surveyor that was at fault they would not be expected to broadcast that there was a time limit. This is unique to financial services and clearly at odds with your assertions.

The misselling of PPI was followed by a requirement for the seller to contact the buyer and make good the missale

Again you are incorrect. Although the FSA may have place a requirement on individual firms there is NO general requirement to do so.

the much bigger responsibility of misselling an endowment and the buyer is the person left to find their way round a minefield of a claims system.

The "red" letters gave clear instructions on how to complain, as well as a time limit. Leaflets published by the FSA also gave details.

Many people on here would give testament to how unsiimple that was

I sometimes wonder how many did not read and follow those instructions.

how often they were refused on first request and had to pursue their redress through the ombudsman service etc.

Some firms did unfairly reject complaints. However, this became apparent when they went to FOS. Trends were reported to the FSA and those firms WERE required to revisit rejected complaints.

Even the Chairman of the FSA agreed at one point that once it was realised these endowment mortgages could not possibly cover their targets they were still being sold, as large comissions were about to disappear once the cat got out of the bag!

By the time the FSA had taken over from the Personal Investment Authority (PIA) in December 2001 most insurers had already stopped offering low cost endowments for mortgages.

So I would be interested to know your sources for this claim.

mayb_2

I wonder at the need for such a forum as this as it is all so cut and dried!! You will continue to see it your way and I mine. I think you may find many people on here who see it as I do - those who are not working to support the industry but struggling to deal with fall out from it and particularly those who bought these endowments after they could no longer be expected to pay out - we all know that in the early years they performed as required and whether people understood them or not, they got back what they expected to and had no complaints. I expect we need to agree to disagree and I do have copies of my posts on this forum somewhere from past years - my story and sources remain the same.

scarymary2011

New to this but need help, not sure if i,m putting this in this right place ?
A friend of mine had a mortgage about 20yrs ago, ( with his then wife). he had an endowment policy. he wants to claim it back now, but does he need his ex wife,s permission as they have not been in contact for over twenty years now. or can he claim it back on his own ? has he was the one who was paying in to it ??? please help asap thank you

magpiecottage

An endowment from that long ago will almost certainly be timebarred by now.

If it is in joint names then both would need to complain anyway and if they have lost touch that seems unlikely to happen.

beth25

Looking for some advice:
We had an endowment mortgage around 12 yrs ago, it was cashed in around 9 yrs ago. I do not have the policy number but know who the company is. Is there anything I can do to try to see if I can claim?

dunstonh

beth25 wrote: »

Looking for some advice:
We had an endowment mortgage around 12 yrs ago, it was cashed in around 9 yrs ago. I do not have the policy number but know who the company is. Is there anything I can do to try to see if I can claim?

you cannot claim on a policy if you are no longer paying premiums. The life assurance and critical illness cover ceased within around 28 days of the last premium being paid.

If you mean complaint, then you have 3 years to complain from being reasonably aware you have something to complain about (or 6 years from the start - but the 3 year rule will be the key one). So, you are well out of date.

You dont actually state what your complaint reason is (again assuming you mean complaint). Although in reality, it doesnt really matter as you are out of time.

Tracey1973

We had a endowment on our halifax mortgage that we took out in 1994,the endowment was with standard life.

We were very naive at the time been 1st time buyers and young,to be honest we didnt have a clue about mortgages or anything financial at the time.
Apparently we cashed the endowment in and changed to a repayment mortgage in about 1998.....does this mean we cant claim this was mis-sold even though we believe it was because we didnt have a clue what 1 was at the time???

dunstonh

We were very naive at the time been 1st time buyers and young,to be honest we didnt have a clue about mortgages or anything financial at the time.

I wouldnt worry about it. Had this site existed at the time it would no doubt had a best buy endowment section (based on the fact that Which? used to have a best buy endowment as well)

Apparently we cashed the endowment in and changed to a repayment mortgage in about 1998.....does this mean we cant claim this was mis-sold even though we believe it was because we didnt have a clue what 1 was at the time???

You get 6 years from the start or 3 years from the event that you were reasonably aware that there was an issue to make a complaint. So, at nearly 14 years after surrender, its fair to say you are out of time.

Chances are you have no grounds for complaint and even if you did, with just four years into the life (and with endowments typically not falling short until around 2001) you wouldnt be due anything even if you were in time and did succeed in complaint.

annsy2003

Hi there. Not sure if anyone can give me advice on my old endowment. It did mature a few years ago and I had a shortfall of about £18,000. I did try to claim fo the endowment being mis-sold but because my husband at the time was the financial adviser I could not claim. However we did get divorced some time later and the endowment policy was signed over to me. I was not told at the time that there was any risk of a shortfall and wondered if I might have a claim for that reason. It is past the date I should have claimed by now but surely Standard Life should have informed me of this or the financial adviser who arranged the transfer to my name.