Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

magpiecottage

hek wrote: »

Hi
I have been contacted by a company saying we can claim compensation on an endowment we bought in 1999 and surrendered a few years later.

They are on a fishing expedition

Rather than pay the 42% the company would like to take out of a successful claim

See!


Actually I have recently dealt with a 1999 sale and it was NOT timebarred. However, by 1999 every sale had a "reason why" letter which almost always, and in the case in question, confirmed that both repayment and endowment mortgages were discussed.

It also confirmed that the endowment did not guarantee to pay off the mortgage at the end of the term. In addition, the illustration showed different rates of return and at the bottom end there was an obvious shortfall.

This was included in a generic "Key Features" document which had a prominent "Risk Factors" section near the beginning and one of the first such factors was that the policy might not pay off the loan in full.

So we have a scenario where I suspect you were made aware of a possible shortfall AND that you could avoid that risk by taking a repayment mortgage. You thus made an informed decision to accept the risk.

That would lead me to conclude that the complaint ought to be rejected.

brokebut

dunstonh wrote: »

1987 is 25 years ago. Can they really remember the conversations like that? Even in 1987 there were risk warnings that they may not hit target.



I remember very clearly the interview we had in 1987 when we were sold an interest only mortgage and endowment policy. We moved house in 2000 and surrendered the endowment, so never reached shortfall stage.
The reason the interview is so memorable is because we were young, first time buyers who were made to feel that the provider was doing us a huge favour by giving us a mortgage, "given the current economic situation and the fact that we had only been in our jobs 2 years"!! (His words.)
We were not offered an alternative product and were informed that acceptance of the mortgage was dependant on us also taking a Mortgage Protection Plan, in addition to the endowment. This was despite the fact that our terms and conditions of employment already provided excellent provision.
Dunston- do you think we would have any chance of a misselling claim after this length of time?

magpiecottage

I remember very clearly the interview we had in 1987 when we were sold an interest only mortgage and endowment policy. We moved house in 2000 and surrendered the endowment, so never reached shortfall stage.
The reason the interview is so memorable is because we were young, first time buyers who were made to feel that the provider was doing us a huge favour by giving us a mortgage, "given the current economic situation and the fact that we had only been in our jobs 2 years"!! (His words.)

That WAS the case in 1987. I remember that I and several colleagues all had to call in favours to get a mortgage for my brother that year.

We were not offered an alternative product

There was no requirement to in 1987.

and were informed that acceptance of the mortgage was dependant on us also taking a Mortgage Protection Plan, in addition to the endowment. This was despite the fact that our terms and conditions of employment already provided excellent provision.

It was not at all uncommon for such a requirement to be imposed at that time.

do you think we would have any chance of a misselling claim after this length of time?

Very difficult - even if documentary evidence survives, which I suspect it does not.

dunstonh

In 1987 it was typically required to take out a life policy. I remember having to assign policies to lenders and the lender would want the policy document or second copy. Nothing wrong with that as lenders are allowed to insist on insurance.

do you think we would have any chance of a misselling claim after this length of time?

Reasons impossible to prove as a lot of it is he said/she said. Documents no likely to exist. Requirements in 1987 were lighter than in later years. We dont have the benefit of seeing the documentation but based on what you have posted, ou would have to say very weak odds.

brokebut

Thanks for your replies to my query both. I suspected my case would be very weak. I don't have any documentation other than the Mortgage Protection Plan direct debit payments from my bank account statements up to 2000 (the 3 products were all paid seperately each month.)

Irritating, though, as the endowment policy itself included the life assurance cover, so this third element was completely surplus to our needs.

Thanks again. Very useful feedback:).

hedgehoglady

Hi, we have been fighting for compensation for our mis-sold endowment since 2003, initially we wrote to scottish life as the estate agent i dealt with was no longer trading. we were told we had to take this up with the agent. in 2004 i contacted the fsa and again told to contact the agent (even though i had expressed i didnt know where he was). In 2005 i wrote to his old business address in the hope my letter may be forwarded on to him. Nothing came from that so we guess he didn't receive it. in 2010 we again wrote to Scottish life with our complaint and also stating we felt this was ongoing, we received two letters on the same day one stating we needed to find the agent, the other to say they had forwarded my complaint to him and gave me his details! The agent contacted us by post with a host of forms which we duly filled out and returned. At the end of the 8 weeks we had no response so contacted him, he asked for an extension. After 11 weeks we had a reply from his financial advisor to say we were outside of the time frame etc etc. we sent our complaint to the fsa in june 2010. the adjudicator awarded in our favour, the agent appealed, the ombudsman awarded in our favour in may of this year.
Throughout this process the agent has failed in the deadlines and constantly asked for extensions.
When the award was made he had 4 weeks to contact us, which of course he didn't, so we went back to the fsa who then proceeded to write to him to say it was a legal and binding contract and he needed to make payment to us.
In August i had another letter from the agent saying as he was not regulated in 1989 the ombudsman were out of their jursidication and should never have taken on our complaint. I spoke to two adjudicaors after this letter to be told the ombudsman desicion is final and CANNOT be overturned.
We have now received a letter from the fsa confirming that the ombudsman shouldn't have upheld our complaint. They are extremely apologetic but that doesnt help us. So this has been overturned. Also has anybody investigated whether this agent was regulated he could have just read a forum like this and told the ombudsman he wasnt regulated? Is there anymore we can now do or another body we can get compensation from? I am guessing by the above threads that i cannot go to Scottish life.
Another area i fail to understand is that the agent is the one who works out what they need to pay you, i understand they have to follow the ru rule but as a 'joe bloggs' in all of this would you know it was a fair offer? its a bit like giving yourself a sentence in court when you have committed a crime, ok judge i shouldn't have stolen that car i'll do 2 hours community service your honour!
to the fsa, Disappointed is an understatement more like devastated, distraught, incensed, enraged!

plantsave

Hi
can anyone help brief outline just found out had a ppi on a mortgage back in 2003 with the Woolwich for £127,000 pay ppi of £29.75.
Moved houe in 2007 change our mortgage from woolwich to another lender but never realised that ppi payments were being paig to Barclays bank Dublin.
In Feb this year stopped the payment of £29.75 just found out that this was a PPI after traking down through various way and Barclays Dublin confirmed on telephone that this was infact a PPI on a mortgage they we know longer had.
My question is how much should I be espection as a refund from them as this is not a normal straight forward case.
Thanks:shocked:

dunstonh

we have been fighting for compensation for our mis-sold endowment since 2003, initially we wrote to scottish life as the estate agent i dealt with was no longer trading.

Scottish Life have no liaibility.

In August i had another letter from the agent saying as he was not regulated in 1989 the ombudsman were out of their jursidication and should never have taken on our complaint. I spoke to two adjudicaors after this letter to be told the ombudsman desicion is final and CANNOT be overturned.

An adjudicator decision is not final and can be appealed and overturned. If the ombudsman should never have considered the complaint then that seems to be a good reason to refuse.

Also has anybody investigated whether this agent was regulated he could have just read a forum like this and told the ombudsman he wasnt regulated?

No-one needs to check. The date you signed the application gives it away. 29th April 1988 is the date. Anything prior to that is pre-regulation and outside the jurisdiction of the FOS unless the adviser/advising firm voluntarily allows the FOS permission to review it. Clearly not the case here.

Is there anymore we can now do or another body we can get compensation from? I am guessing by the above threads that i cannot go to Scottish life.

Scottish Life are not responsible. You are not complaining about the product. Yu are complaining about the advice. They gave you no advice. Therefore have no liability. You have no regulatory protection and no-one to complain to. Your only consideration now is the courts. However, you are quite probably timebarred from going to the courts plus, unlike the FSA complaints process, there is an onus on you to prove wrongdoing. Plus, it will cost you, especially if you fail.

Another area i fail to understand is that the agent is the one who works out what they need to pay you, i understand they have to follow the ru rule but as a 'joe bloggs' in all of this would you know it was a fair offer?

For complaints considered under the FSA complaints process, the method of redress is set by the FSA and there are calculators available that work out it.

to the fsa, Disappointed is an understatement more like devastated, distraught, incensed, enraged!

What you were asking the FSA/FOS to do was akin to getting a driver to pay a fine for going 40mph on a zone with a 50mph limit that was reduced to 30mph many years after they went through it at 40.

Yes you dont like the decision. That is understandable but you need to move on as there is nothing you can go it about it. You are just wasting time and energy with nowhere to go now.

can anyone help brief outline just found out had a ppi on a mortgage back in 2003 with the Woolwich for £127,000 pay ppi of £29.75.

plantsave, your question has no relevance to this thread. So, I wont answer it here. However, I have answered your duplicate post.

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

No-one needs to check. The date you signed the application gives it away. 29th April 1988 is the date. Anything prior to that is pre-regulation and outside the jurisdiction of the FOS unless the adviser/advising firm voluntarily allows the FOS permission to review it. Clearly not the case here.

Hedgehoglady says the adviser was not regulated in 1989.

If that is correct then Scottish Life should not have accepted the business and would seem to have a liability.

dunstonh

Hedgehoglady says the adviser was not regulated in 1989.

I was reading that differently to you on the basis that it was a pre-regulation sale and the date was a typo. Mainly as the FSA verified that the FOS should not have considered it. If it was actually 1989 then the FOS should consider it but with Scot Life with liability.