Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

dunstonh

Oops. Typo - that should have been 1988, not 1998. _pale_

Important Typo!!! When in 1988 was the application signed. This is very important and will decide whether the FSCS will look at it or not.

VX_Foxy

I had an endowment with Winterthur (ugh) that was performing very badly. I didn't feel that I was miss sold perse, but when I came to trade it I found that I couldn't because it was the wrong type (not with profits or summat ) - had I known the difference I would have had the other type. So I contacted one of these crappy claims companies (doh!) who told me that I didn't have a claim. Not convinced, I persued a claim myself directly with Winterthur (who I have to say, performed much better that their crappy endowment!). They upheld my claim and sent me £2000 :T

dunstonh

I had an endowment with Winterthur (ugh) that was performing very badly. I didn't feel that I was miss sold perse, but when I can to trade it I found that i couldn't because it was the wrong type (not with profits or summat ). So I contacted one of these crappy claims companies (doh!) who told me that I didn't have a claim. Not convinced, I persued a claim myself directly with Winterthur (who I have to say, performed much better that their crappy endowment!). They upheld my claim and sent me £2000 :T

So, you lied and got away with it.

VX_Foxy

dunstonh wrote:

So, you lied and got away with it.

Eh? How did I lie?

dunstonh

VX_Foxy wrote:

Eh? How did I lie?

You said you didnt feel you were mis-sold.

I didn't feel that I was miss sold perse, but when I came to trade it I found that I couldn't because it was the wrong type (not with profits or summat ) - had I known the difference I would have had the other type.

Having a unit linked endowment instead of a with profits one is the reason you were not happy. Yet ironically, the unit linked one is far better and, if 25 years, is likely to come in on target and still pay a surplus. At least far more likely than the with profits one.

VX_Foxy

dunstonh wrote:

You said you didnt feel you were mis-sold.

I said 'mis-sold perse' - ie from the endowment v repayment POV.

andreab_2

Hi everyone,
I bought an endowment in 1997 to pay off the mortgage on my flat. The financial adviser was quite intimidating and when I phoned him within the cool-off period to say I really wasn't sure about the interest-only mortgage, he was quite patronising. I was very busy with work at the time and just went ahead, safe in the thought that the endowment would pay off the mortgage. I received an amber letter last year and again this year - it looks pretty certain that I won't be able to pay it all off, but because my letter is amber, I'm presuming that I can't complain. Does anyone know any different?

Any ideas gratefully accepted!

Andrea B

dunstonh

I received an amber letter last year and again this year - it looks pretty certain that I won't be able to pay it all off, but because my letter is amber, I'm presuming that I can't complain. Does anyone know any different?

You can complain if you felt you were mis-sold. The amber/red/green status means nothing on that front.

Also, an amber warning doesnt mean it wont pay it off. It just means that using straight line growth figures at those example rates, it would not meet the required target. However, endowments don't grow using straight line growth and the projections are often flawed and understate (or over state in some cases) the growth potential. The way that endowments work, it's virtually impossible for them to show green when you are less than 10 years into a 25 year term.

madkingsoup

dunstonh wrote:

Important Typo!!! When in 1988 was the application signed. This is very important and will decide whether the FSCS will look at it or not.

The start date of the policy was 20th October 1988, and the earliest document I can find is dated a week or so before that.

dunstonh

If the application was completed after 28th August 1988, then the FSCS should be able to help you. If the application was completed before then but the policy started after that date, it means you cannot claim. It's the date of the advice, not the policy commencement that matters.

At this stage, you really don't know what is going to happen and it will almost certainly be a long drawn out process that could take up to 2 years. This is why I say you shouldnt let it concern you now what may happen. You may be a long time waiting to find out