Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

Lewie

dunstonh wrote: »

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.

Makes sense.

dunstonh wrote: »

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.

Or that's what they would like you and others to believe?
Poor admin? records destroyed? clerical issues?
All seems very convenient to me.
Perhaps if 975 were proven and 25 were not they know they would look worse than they do.
Better to 'lose' the proof.
Cynical, me? Never.

dunstonh

Or that's what they would like you and others to believe?
Poor admin? records destroyed? clerical issues?
All seems very convenient to me.

It seems logical to me. When the data protection act came in lots were scared into destroying documents older than 6 years. Many client files were destroyed. It was only later that people realised that actually the data protection act didnt require you to destroy records like that. The other thing is that until endowments, no-one had ever been required to look back at old files like that. So, old files tended to be treated with little respect. Shoved in filing cabinets and if anyone who has done paper filing before will tell you, things get put in the wrong place, paper fades over time and as new files get shoved in to the cabinet, old papers get ripped and damaged.

Perhaps if 975 were proven and 25 were not they know they would look worse than they do.
Better to 'lose' the proof.
Cynical, me? Never.

Your numbers are wrong. 25 were proven mis-sales. 225 resulted in redress but were not proven upholds. 750 were rejected as not mis-sold. So, the maximum number that could be mis-sold was 250. Some, none or all of those 225 could have been mis-sold. However, there is no way to tell.

Also, if the case is going to be paid out on anyway, then why lose paperwork on purpose? To the regulator, consumer and PI insurer, a redress payment is an upheld complaint even if it is down to lost, missing or poor paperwork. There is nothing to be gained by losing paperwork.

The point that was being made by the compliance company to the advisers that were present is that better record keeping results in fewer upheld complaints. Claims companies knew that statistically, they were more likely to succeed on bad record keeping than an upheld complaint. So, even on cases that looked ok and not mis-sold they would still put a complaint in as they had a 1 in 4 chance of getting lucky. Many put this this poor record keeping down as a key reason for the rise of the claims company. This can be seen today in the PPI area where it is non-regulated/non-advised sales that are getting the hit. Advised sales only account for 0.2% of PPI complaints at the FOS and are mostly rejected. Also, advisers have appeared to have learned from past mistakes as just in October, the FOS congratulated IFAs on their complaint handling and reflected that the reason why the rejection rate is lower for IFAs is better documentation (IFAs currently account for just 1% of complaints at the FOS with most complaints now rejected). Shame the banks didnt see what had happened on the advice side of things. Although the FSA requiring them to use current regulatory standards on historical complaints is something they couldnt have planned for. If you want to be cynical, you could suggest that PPI was a way to get the banks to poor billions into the economy that they were involved in wrecking.

Lewie

dunstonh wrote: »

It seems logical to me.

You really should put your cynical hat on, all this ripping and tearing and losing and...................... they seem to be very capable of filing stuff away when it is to their advantage.

dunstonh wrote: »

Your numbers are wrong. 25 were proven mis-sales. 225 resulted in redress but were not proven upholds. 750 were rejected as not mis-sold. So, the maximum number that could be mis-sold was 250. Some, none or all of those 225 could have been mis-sold. However, there is no way to tell.

Also, if the case is going to be paid out on anyway, then why lose paperwork on purpose? There is nothing to be gained by losing paperwork.

Sorry, mis read that, however as for the second part, that was the point I was trying to make.
Of course there is something to be gained by 'losing' paperwork.
It is the usual avoidance of blame, it's like the standard 'gesture of goodwill' payment or when the police are accused of something or a cabinet member is accused of 'accidentaly' submitting a receipt for the cleaning of a duck house.
It is better to pay out without fuss and be able to say "we didn't do it on purpose, honest".
You can bet your life the paperwork 'lost' was evidence of the most blatant mis selling.

wsupp

I had an endowment mortgage provided by Winterthur back in 1996, which I believe I was mis sold. I surrendered the policy in 2003. Is it still possible to complain about this? Should my compliant be directed to AXA? Thanks for any advice!

dunstonh

wsupp wrote: »

I had an endowment mortgage provided by Winterthur back in 1996, which I believe I was mis sold. I surrendered the policy in 2003. Is it still possible to complain about this? Should my compliant be directed to AXA? Thanks for any advice!

You have three years from being reasonably aware of an issue to make a complaint or you can be timebarred. You surrendered back in 2003. So, a timebar could be applied in 2006.

annypzt

I would love it if you could just alter the wording to "While not always a fan of the Consumers Association, as they recommended endomwents themselves but have decided to forget that....."

Sirlaughalot

Hi Mse`s

I have just sent a complaint off having paid 15 years into an endowment policy that looks like leaving me with a mortgage short fall of as much as £23000.

Thanks for the guidance on this thread as it has been that long ago that i started the policy i was unaware there was a compensation issue with these policies.

According to the salesman who sold me the policy i was going to pay off the mortgage and have enough to go on a cruise and buy a caravan once the policy matured. No Chance!

What i can`t understand is the stock market and Financial services sector, even with the 2008 financial crisis have still performed considerably well when compared to these endowment policy's over the last 15 years so whose kidding who?

Many Thanks

SL

dunstonh

Thanks for the guidance on this thread as it has been that long ago that i started the policy i was unaware there was a compensation issue with these policies.

There isn't nowadays. Over three quarters of the remaining endowments are barred from complaint and the issue is generally considered to be over now bar the odd straggler that is left within the 1/4 that isnt barred.

What i can`t understand is the stock market and Financial services sector, even with the 2008 financial crisis have still performed considerably well when compared to these endowment policy's over the last 15 years so whose kidding who?

It was the early millenium issues that caused the problem. Dot.com etc. Those in unit linked funds with another 10 years to go may well find the 2008/9 onwards volatility ends up being a very good thing. Those in closed with profits funds may well be in funds that have had to change from focusing on the return to making sure they remain solvent.

Sirlaughalot

dunstonh wrote: »

There isn't nowadays. Over three quarters of the remaining endowments are barred from complaint and the issue is generally considered to be over now bar the odd straggler that is left within the 1/4 that isnt barred.



It was the early millenium issues that caused the problem. Dot.com etc. Those in unit linked funds with another 10 years to go may well find the 2008/9 onwards volatility ends up being a very good thing. Those in closed with profits funds may well be in funds that have had to change from focusing on the return to making sure they remain solvent.

Thanks for your reply,

The FOS representative is still of the opinion that a lot of endowement policy providers have still not informed policy holders of their right of complaint.

Many merging endowment companies during the process of muliple mergers/take overs have failed in their duty to inform policy holders and i`m one of those and i`m sure from the FOS that there are many more

SL

dunstonh

The FOS representative is still of the opinion that a lot of endowement policy providers have still not informed policy holders of their right of complaint.

The FOS telephone call answer can think what they like. They are not involved in the adjudication or decisions and not trained to know such things. The telephone line is notorious for telling people what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. The fact is that the majority are timebarred. A key fact is whether you are timebarred or not. Not what others are.

Many merging endowment companies during the process of muliple mergers/take overs have failed in their duty to inform policy holders and i`m one of those and i`m sure from the FOS that there are many more

There are no known companies at the moment that have made mistakes on timebarring. There have been in the past, such as Friends Prov trying to use 2001 notifications as the starting point but failing and having to rely on 2003/4 instead. However, this still resulted in them being barred 5/6 years ago.

If your provider has told you that you are not timebarred then complain away. If you are timebarred then do not expect the FOS to overrule it. It is unclear what stage your complaint is at. If you are dealing with the FOS then this would indicate your complaint has already been rejected as they only get involved with rejected complaints.