Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

Crazy_Saver

Originally posted by ff999
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.

Hi ff999

Yes we got our first red alert letter in July this year. It was this letter that triggered us into making our complaint.
At first the company that the advisor works for did try to time bar us. I wrote to them giving the date of our red alert letter as well as quoting the FSA guidlines which state that clients should be given 3 years from the date of their first red alert letter to make their claim. After checking the dates with the insurance company, they appologised and lifted the time bar.

I must add that although they lifted the time bar, the advisor's company still claimed that our miss-selling complaint was not valid. We are still waiting to hear from the FOS as to whether they will uphold our complaint.

ff999

Crazy_Saver wrote:

Hi ff999

Yes we got our first red alert letter in July this year. It was this letter that triggered us into making our complaint.
At first the company that the advisor works for did try to time bar us. I wrote to them giving the date of our red alert letter as well as quoting the FSA guidlines which state that clients should be given 3 years from the date of their first red alert letter to make their claim. After checking the dates with the insurance company, they appologised and lifted the time bar.

I must add that although they lifted the time bar, the advisor's company still claimed that our miss-selling complaint was not valid. We are still waiting to hear from the FOS as to whether they will uphold our complaint.

thanks for replying.
My problem i that the first reprojection letter was sent 6 years ago, but I stupidly waited for a colour coded letter, that I had been led to believe would arrive.
However the FSA said the first reprojection letter set the clock ticking, and that the colour coded letter was just a phrase used in the media.

So you can imagine my surprise when the colour coded letter saying RED ALERT did actually turn up, but 2 and a half years AFTER I was time barred.

Crazy_Saver

Originally posted by ff999
However the FSA said the first reprojection letter set the clock ticking, and that the colour coded letter was just a phrase used in the media.

Hi again ff999.

Was it definately the FSA or the FOS that you dealt with?

The FSA offer advice and guidelines, but it's the FOS that help with claims.

madkingsoup

ff999 wrote:

thanks for replying.
My problem i that the first reprojection letter was sent 6 years ago, but I stupidly waited for a colour coded letter, that I had been led to believe would arrive.
However the FSA said the first reprojection letter set the clock ticking, and that the colour coded letter was just a phrase used in the media.

So you can imagine my surprise when the colour coded letter saying RED ALERT did actually turn up, but 2 and a half years AFTER I was time barred.

Didn't someone recently get a court judgement in their favour on this point? I'm sure I read somewhere (might have been here!) about someone who managed to successfully claim that the clock hadn't started ticking because none of the letters actually had a red alert.

Or did I dream it..?

dunstonh

Vinno was the poster who did. However, it doesnt set a precedent. FP have gone on to use later letters now to time bar one that and every day you see more and more getting time barred within the rules. The doors are beginning to close.

ff999

Crazy_Saver wrote:

Hi again ff999.

Was it definately the FSA or the FOS that you dealt with?

The FSA offer advice and guidelines, but it's the FOS that help with claims.

Doh - it was the FOS... too many effing Fs.

As for someone successfully getting their time bar lifted... I raised that case in my last letter to them.

I've just had to root around to find their response. I have only read it once, it just makes me so blimmin angry.

They say...
"....Additionally you have stated that Brunel Franklin made a complaint to the Financial Service Authority and Financial Ombudsman Service over which it feels we give and inconsistent approach to time limits on complaints. Whilst I appreciate your statement, this does not have any relevance to your case and your complaint is time barred under the rules set down by the Financial Service Authority and still remains outside the juridstiction of our service." In little words.... You're still time barred, whatever you think.

and about the successful county court case:
" I also note that you have made reference to the Vincent Cunningham county court case. I am aware of the judgement issued by the Reigate Couty Court. The court considered the time limits applied to it and not the timelimits that the ombudsman is obliged to apply. The time limits that we have to work with are set by the industry regulator - The FSA. The decision of a county court on the time limits for bringing a case to it has no implications for the way the ombudsman service must apply the FSA's rules."
Reading the letter again, it looks like the FOS are blaming the FSA for tying their hands by the time limits the FSA have applied.
I'm still popping about this. I suppose I can only complain to my MP, and that is as much as I believe I can do.

WRW

Martin, please mention in your headlines about endowment misselling claims, that folks with policies sold before 1988 are a lot less likely to get compensation. Regulation started on 29 April 1988. Only companies that signed a voluntary code are likely to compensate on earlier policies. NONE of the headlines (yours or others) mentions this and we were disappointed after going through the whole complaints business to find this out at the end. A good reference is at: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/consumer/01_WARNINGS/endowments/mn_time.html#pre1988

defender_of_the_weak

Martin

WRW posting is not true. All policies sold by banks building societies and direct salesforces are covered by FOS and with a few sneaky exceptions most of these have agreed to voluntary jurisdiction and will review sales pre 88 and compensate accordingly. Even some of the larger IFAs such as Barclays Insurance services will review, it is generally the IFAs who will not review pre 88 and their share of the market at that time was approx 10-15% from memory.

If people think they have a complaint they should pursue it, don't be put off by people telling you it cannot work from the outset. Many people do not even understand the status of the adviser at the time of the sale and believe they were dealing with an 'Independent' (which many were for mortgage purposes) when in fact they were tied or appointed representatives for the endowment part of the sale

mayb_2

Can anyone tell me if the time bar thing is actually lawful in itself. If a case did come to court would the FSA stating there was a time bar be enough to throw out a claim for instance. Why should these companies be able to claim a time bar against the consumer? There appear to be rules that apply to the consumer that the FSA can enforce but when the companies break the rules the outcomes are much less sure. How can you prove a negative - if you didn't get a red letter how can you prove it, if the company claims you did?

annieb_3

Can anyone tell me if I am still able to obtain compensation for my mis sold endowment even though I have now not got a morgage?