Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

Lewie

I understand how Chuzzle feels.
I too have a similar situation.
Personally, if a person has been mis sold something I don't think there should be any time limit on it.

dunstonh

Lewie wrote: »

I understand how Chuzzle feels.
I too have a similar situation.
Personally, if a person has been mis sold something I don't think there should be any time limit on it.

In law, there is a 15 year timebar that applies to virtually everything out there apart from financial services where the FSA do not apply that to the complaints process. If you tried court, it would be applied then. So, actually, the position in financial services is more favourable to the consumer than the law.

Endowments started falling short around 2001. Most started writing around around 2003-2005 warning people that they had three years to complain. They reminded people a number of times over the period and in the lead up to the actual timebar date they issued a further warning of that time bar date.

So, if someone hasnt complained by that point then there really isnt an excuse.

chuzzle_2

Thank you Lewie at least I know I'm not alone!!!!!!!
I think you should be able to make a complaint at anytime whilst you are paying into a policy, and only put a time bar on claiming back on old policies. How long would the insurance companies have left it until the FSA stepped in????

chuzzle_2

Anyone been in my position and have been successful with EMCAS. I got a rude phone call from them the other day because I hadn't returned the contract and when I said my financial adviser said there was no such thing as a time barring department they said he was a "liar" - how unprofessional!!!!!

dunstonh

Anyone been in my position and have been successful with EMCAS.

They are a known scam company. Do a google search or look up past posts on this site.

when I said my financial adviser said there was no such thing as a time barring department they said he was a "liar" - how unprofessional!!!!!

That tells you all you need to know about them.

Lewie

dunstonh wrote: »

So, if someone hasnt complained by that point then there really isnt an excuse.

There is always an exception to every rule.
To say there is no excuse assumes that you know every individuals circumstances, which of course would not be possible.

I did complain and the bank were "pleased to inform me" that they agreed that I had been missold the policy but that according to their calculations I had not lost out financially up to that point so I was not due compensation.
How that is fair I don't know.
They admit to duping people yet can get away with it.
Lets assume I wasn't due any compensation, in that case, in m y opinion, they should have been fined for their wrong doing.

One other thing, just because the law says it is so, that doesn't necessarily make it right.

chuzzle_2

I suppose you could say that if you've been robbed but not complained about it after a certain length of time then you may as well forget about it??

dunstonh

I did complain and the bank were "pleased to inform me" that they agreed that I had been missold the policy but that according to their calculations I had not lost out financially up to that point so I was not due compensation.
How that is fair I don't know.

That is very fair. The calculation method used would take the surrender value of the endowment and use it to reduce the mortgage balance and compare it to where you would have been on a repayment method. If there is a shortfall, then you are paid redress. If there is no shortfall, it means you were financially better off.

They admit to duping people yet can get away with it.

They admitted you were missold but you gained financially from it.

Lets assume I wasn't due any compensation, in that case, in m y opinion, they should have been fined for their wrong doing.

How do you know it was wrong doing? for every 1 case that was genuinely mis-sold, another 200 got paid out on because of lost documentation or poor record keeping where no mis-sale was identified but the documentation could not support the sale. As it happened, the FSA did take action against a number of firms.

One other thing, just because the law says it is so, that doesn't necessarily make it right.

You are not the law. You dont decide.

Lewie

dunstonh wrote: »

it means you were financially better off.

No it doesn't, it means there was no shortfall, that doesn't mean I was financially better off.
Why would I be complaining about a shortfall, triggered by a warning letter from the lender, if I was financially better off?

dunstonh wrote: »

How do you know it was wrong doing?

Because they admitted it?

dunstonh wrote: »

for every 1 case that was genuinely mis-sold, another 200 got paid out on because of lost documentation or poor record keeping where no mis-sale was identified but the documentation could not support the sale.

Really? That's a very exact firgure you're quoting there, what's your source?
I wish I had a recording of them selling me the endowment, believe me, it was VERY mis sold.

dunstonh wrote: »

You are not the law. You dont decide.

Firstly, that isn't possible, a person cannot be "the law", it is a set of rules laid down by crusty old geezers.
Secondly, I was merely pointing out that I disagree with the rule on this one. My prerogative.
I take it you agree with every law of this land?

dunstonh

No it doesn't, it means there was no shortfall, that doesn't mean I was financially better off.

It does as you would have received redress otherwise.

Why would I be complaining about a shortfall, triggered by a warning letter from the lender, if I was financially better off?

Doesnt mean the endowment was not going to hit target. However, a mortgage in a shortfall position on example projections does not mean it is performing worse than had you been on a repayment mortgage.

Your complaint was that you should have been no a repayment mortgage. They agreed with you and when they calculated what balance you would have owed had you been on a repayment mortgage, they would have found that the current mortgage balance minus surrender value actually made you better off than what you were complaining about. Hence no redress. It was quite a common outcome. Especially on endowments using low example projection rates but performing in excess of them or conventional with profits plans that could not project from the current value but had to project for a the surrender value or a value that did not include the final bonus accrued to date.

Because they admitted it?

Because they knew you were financially better off and didnt have to pay any redress it would make more sense to agree with the complaint than reject it. That is what normally happens in that case.

Really? That's a very exact firgure you're quoting there, what's your source?

It was issued from a compliance company many years ago about the complaints they handled. They found out of an average 1000 complaints, only 25 were proven mis-sale. Another 225 received redress because of poor administration, records destroyed or clerical issues.