Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

mayb_2

As I said dunstooth "The fact that they were given a comparison of costs between a repayment mortgage and an endowment mortgage doesn't prove that any risks were explained to them does it."

I take it you are suggesting that people should not get compensated when they are missold an Endowment Policy then - in order to avoid this 'compensation culture'? I am not quite sure what your point is here. If they make a claim and it is upheld would that be wrong do you think? The whole point of this thread - part of this site - is to help people to get compensated for missold endowments isn't it? Act Now on Missold Endowments etc? Or have I got lost in the maze?

dunstonh

As I said dunstooth "The fact that they were given a comparison of costs between a repayment mortgage and an endowment mortgage doesn't prove that any risks were explained to them does it."

He confirmed that the endowment/repayment mortgage comparison was also given as well as the figures. This was a different document to the cost comparison. - " I have a comparison sheet from them prior to taking out the policy, showing the difference between endowment and repayment,"

I take it you are suggesting that people should not get compensated when they are missold an Endowment Policy then

People genuinely missold should get redress. However, nowhere near the number of people getting redress were missold.

I am not quite sure what your point is here.

The comment you made was that you have nothing to lose. That is indicative of the situation. Whether you were genuinely missold or not you have nothing to lose by making a complaint.

The whole point of this thread - part of this site - is to help people to get compensated for missold endowments isn't it? Act Now on Missold Endowments etc? Or have I got lost in the maze?

Correct. However, we shouldnt encourage people to make fraudulent claims.

mayb_2

I don't think you mean to suggest that this person is trying to make a fraudulent claim do you? The point of this whole page is to ensure that any person who has been mis-sold an endowment policy should be encouraged to make a claim. These people obviously believe they were missold but are just not sure that they can prove it - so they have nothing to lose by trying do they? p.s. was the difference between the endowment and the repayment they were shown the financial difference in payments or a full explanation of the implications of each?

dunstonh

I don't think you mean to suggest that this person is trying to make a fraudulent claim do you?

I havent accused him of making a fraudulent claim. I was specifically responding to the comment " It worked for us and what have you got to lose?" which wasnt made by mikeywills.

In his case, I stated that there are some things he has seen that if the advising firm has got them on file, will be very strong evidence of proof that they were discussed. However, we dont know if they are on the file or not and only a complaint would tell.

p.s. was the difference between the endowment and the repayment they were shown the financial difference in payments or a full explanation of the implications of each?

BHL had two documents here. One was a summary of the pros vs cons of both methods and the other was a comparative cost illustration on like for like basis. Mikeywills has confirmed that both of these were issued prior to sign up.

So, on that basis, repayment and endowment was discussed and information on the pros and cons was supplied. Indeed, the sales process for mortgages with BHL was one of informed choice rather than actual recommendation.

The complaints proceedure is there to cover missales. Not to cover the wrong choice made after the information was given. It is to cover the wrong choice made when no or incorrect information was given.

ff999

Crazy_Saver wrote:

Hi there all you clever money experts.

First they time barred me but when I challenged them on the "High Risk Red Letter" dates, they admitted they were wrong and lifted the time bar.
Crazy saver

Can you advise how you challenged them? And did you actually get any colour coded letter? I got reprojection letters, but didn't know then the clock had started, and had stopped before I complained.
Both Windsor Life AND the FSA said that the reprojection letters counted , that the 'colour coded letters were something that the press suggested would happen'. But then I did actually get one, 2 and a half years after I was time barred.
No matter what argument I have put, FSA aren't interested.
I still don't see how they can say that the colour coded letter was actually a reprojection lette,r only for me to get what I was waiting for all too late.

mikeywills

dunstonh wrote:

I havent accused him of making a fraudulent claim. I was specifically responding to the comment " It worked for us and what have you got to lose?" which wasnt made by mikeywills.

In his case, I stated that there are some things he has seen that if the advising firm has got them on file, will be very strong evidence of proof that they were discussed. However, we dont know if they are on the file or not and only a complaint would tell.



BHL had two documents here. One was a summary of the pros vs cons of both methods and the other was a comparative cost illustration on like for like basis. Mikeywills has confirmed that both of these were issued prior to sign up.

Actually dunstonh, my comments must have confused you, as my PIL only received a comparative cost illustration not a description of the differences between the two. So thanks for clearing up the discrepancy mayb, as we now have a possible avenue for the claim.
I have no intention of trying to claim fraudulently on their behalf, but I do feel that as they have always been very close to minimum wage, then the high risk endowment route was not really appropriate for them and had they been made aware that it may not pay out in full they most certainly would not have taken it.

dunstonh

There certainly were two forms to give. One was a glossy endowment vs repayment and highlighted the pros and cons. The other was a printout, of lesser quality as it came from a printer, of the comparative costs.

If it wasnt issued, you have a stronger avenue to complain and hope that the cover paragraphs that BHFS wanted on the reason why letters werent there. (and they often werent as they kept issuing reminders in their monthly bulletins saying that they were still coming across high numbers of reason why letters without the required warnings on them).

mayb_2

Mickeywills I had thought that was what you had said - I would consider using the Which letter though, as it does help to make all of the right points in the right way. Other people have posted on alternative sites which offer to help. When you don't know what you are doing it helps to avoid the pitfalls of missing out relevant information etc.

Best of luck.

Chip_Butty_3

Hi'ya,

I'm in need of some advice. A friend has an Endowment policy remaining from when they were married (now divorced) & it no longer covers a Mortgage.

It was set up in December 1985 with Friends Provident.

If they were seeking to complain about being Mis-Sold then as it was pre 1988, have they much success in gaining any compensation. it was sold to them by the Nationwide.

A company 'SA' Solar Accountants have contacted them, offering to complain on their behalf, however want 29.5% of any payout.

My question is.... should they complain themselves as per the 'Which Site' or let the company do the paperwork for them ?

Incidentally I was successful when I DIY'd it.

Regards

Mic

defender_of_the_weak

29.5%!!! Outrageous

Do not pay more than 10% plus VAT if using any form of company. pre 88 nationwide tend to be kicked into the long grass on the basis of 'we didnt give advice, just gave alternatives and you the customer picked the one we liked'. We never lose these against any of the big banks and building societies although nearly all of them have had to go to the Ombudsman for a ruling. Even if it has to go to this stage, still should not pay more than the above. any company worth a fee should have these argument pretty well sorted by now and a fee of 29.5% is way over the top.