Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

Paul_Herring

Apologies for all the quoting here...

bellr wrote:

I have made complaints to two solicitor firms who also provided financial advice and recommended standard life policies in 1989 and 1990. Both have refused the claim because, "Our insurers have asked us to point out that in terms of a negligence claim the Limitation Act 1980 imposes a long stop date of 15 years, so that they would consider your claim to be statutte barred."

i.e I had 15 years from the date of being sold the policy to making the claim (so 15 years would be 2004 and 2005 latest). All of the advice I can see on long stops and time barring appear to refer to the deadlines specified by the endowment company, in these cases Standard Life. I was within the timescalse for this. I cannot find any specific statements saying if you were sold the policy more than 15 years ago don't bother.

I have asked the Financial Ombudsman for advice a month ago and am still waiting.

Am I wasting my time???

dunstonh wrote:

bellr wrote:

Am I wasting my time???

Yes. The FOS have no jurisdiction over solicitors for policies sold then.

dreamylittledream wrote:

Yes but The Law Society does.

However the Law Societies power to award compensation for financial services complaints only applies to policies sold after April 1991, so in the OP's case he would not be able to apply.

So the "yes they're wasting their time" is neither incorrect nor misleading?

However if your policy was sold by an ENGLISH solicitor after April 1991 and your complaint is rejected by the solicitor you can take your case to the Law Society who treat cases in a very similar fashion to the FOS.

How does this help the OP? The policies appear to have been sold in 1989 & 1990. The mention of the Law Society in this particular instance appears to be a case of mentioning them for mentioning sake.

dreamylittledream wrote:

dunsotnh wrote:

dreamylittledream wrote:

*sigh*

Yes but The Law Society does.

Please do not take my responses out of context. The poster requested if they could take the complaint to the ombudsman and I reponded correctly in that respect. The policies were sold before April 1991 and before the Law Societies power so they cannot to to the law society.

I'm not taking your response out of context - you made no reference to the Law Society in your reply

It would appear, from your own comments at that, that the reason they weren't mentioned was because they couldn't help. What's the point in saying "Well X could help you but you've left it too long, and Y could help you but the amount isn't sufficient, and Z could help you but they don't deal with soliciters"

and the implication could easily be drawn that there is no further point of call in cases involving solicitors. Therefore I corrected that.

Interesting conclusion. Not that I personally agree with it, nor see a need for correction. YMMV of course.

Actually they can go to the Law Society on grounds of negliagance...the chances of success however are unlikely.

That looks like another "S could help you but..." sentence.

Equally you made no reference to April 1991 or any other point of call - in short your approach was inappropriate answer to the OP and anyone else who sort information from this thread - not the first time you have replied to posts in such a fashion either.

I'd just like to point out part of the sentence at the top of every message board page:

Martin_Lewis wrote:

pls be nice to all MoneySavers!

dreamylittledream

Paul - I am being nice

Just giving the balanced view thats all - its worthwhile pointing out the reasons and options behind a course of action rather then a narrow blanket response which could easily be misinterpreted by other reading (ie the post will be read by more then just the OP)

And the OP can go to the Law Society under negliagence grounds and indeed to the courts should that fail - but the compensation awarded (if any) would be different to that if it was sold after April 1991 and the burden of proof required is much higher...

And dunstoh knows I'm only playing

Mr_BARGAIN_2

Hi We Received A Letter From Are Insurance Compnay (allied Dunbar) Saying That We Had Run Out Of Time (fsa Rules) Yet Martin Is Saying Act Now Before Its To Late .we Took The Endowment Policy Out In May 95 Shall I Carry On And Get In Touch With Insurance Ombudsman Or File It Under Bin

sainthalo

Hi my dad bought via a solicitor and due to the date would need to proceed by negligence claim. Is there an easy way to calculate our losses? the solicitor hasnt done a calculation and I was wondering how to calculate the loss?

dunstonh

Mr_BARGAIN wrote:

Hi We Received A Letter From Are Insurance Compnay (allied Dunbar) Saying That We Had Run Out Of Time (fsa Rules) Yet Martin Is Saying Act Now Before Its To Late .we Took The Endowment Policy Out In May 95 Shall I Carry On And Get In Touch With Insurance Ombudsman Or File It Under Bin

The "act now before its too late" started a long time ago. Its getting to the point when it is too late for many or will be for many more quite soon.

chaos2

Hi there,

I hope someone can give me some advise what my next step should be. Have complained to L&G about mis selling but now have been turn down.

1) Risk Atttidue--- as 3/9 (cautious to speculative) which indicate low risk investor. So With Profit funds is sutiable.

2) Was told that I was advise about repayment method, but the repayment method that was discuss was interest only, either With Profit or Pep. That was what the advisor said at that time.

3)After reviewing our circumstances, L&G concluded that we can meet and afford extra interest should interest rate rises, which indicate that we can meet any short fall of the returns.

Thank you

dunstonh

1) Risk Atttidue--- as 3/9 (cautious to speculative) which indicate low risk investor. So With Profit funds is sutiable.

That would be correct upto around 1998. With Profits was considered cautious in the 90s or earlier.

2) Was told that I was advise about repayment method, but the repayment method that was discuss was interest only, either With Profit or Pep. That was what the advisor said at that time.

Does the documentation given by L&G show that repayment method was discussed?

3)After reviewing our circumstances, L&G concluded that we can meet and afford extra interest should interest rate rises, which indicate that we can meet any short fall of the returns.

Thats a new one on me. I cant see that as a good enough rebuff. Depending on the documentation they have used to "prove" it wasnt mis-sold, I would say take it further. Dont expect to get far on point 1 but point 2 could be your best bet. Point 3 is rubbish.

defender_of_the_weak

Another pile of standard cut and paste from L & G. The affordability one has been creeping into rejection letters a lot recently and bears little if any relation to the real circumstances. Having some spare cash in no way means that someone is prepared to take a risk with their home or purchase thereof.

Take it to the FOS. It cannot be guaranted that it will be overturned but if you have gone this far and think you still have a case you may as well take the next step

dreamylittledream

DOTW is indeed correct and judging by the uphold rate coming from the FOS on L&G cases I would certainly appeal it - what have you to lose?

JosieAnn_2

Hope I've posted this in the right place, only second time I've used this.I took out two endowments, one in 1989 for £45000 and a top up in 1993 for £5000. As I worked for the Insurance Company at the time I was encouraged to take out endowments as the returns would be higher. The company should have got staff to sign disclaimer forms saying no advice was given.

I have written to the Insurance Company asking for a copy of the disclaimers and they have sent me a copy of the one for the £5000I have asked them where I stand in resepct of the £45000 but I can't get a reply from them. When I phoned they said that they probably did have a disclaimer for the £45000 policy but couldn't find it at the moment but even if they didn't have one it wouldn't make any difference, I still couldn't claim any mis selling.

Can anyone tell me if this is correct?