Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

Lewie

Thanks Art i will keep that in mind.

vinno65

vinno65 wrote:

Hi Dunston,

that's not quite what i was after i was looking more for the total outgoings over 25 years for both types of mortgages.

regards Vinno

also any comments on below?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages/endowments/article.html?in_article_id=417463&in_page_id=55

Dunston??

regards Vinno

happyjo34

I know within the 36 pages of threads there is an answer to this but where?

My son had an endowment policy from 23 August 1995 with Winterthur, he received a letter from them dated 12 July 2002 stating there was a high risk of a shortfall. Until I sent him Martin's article he didn't know that he could complain. Like others he was told that the mortgage would be paid off in full and there would be a bonus too.

He sent them a letter of complaint dated 15th January which he posted 1st class that night with other letters. Amazingly although the other letters were received and the enclosed cheques were cleared within days, Winterthur advised that they only received his letter on the 5th February - 9 days after their deadline.

He moved into another property during Easter last year and let the flat. Unfortunately, the tenants didn't forward his mail which included Winterthur's letter of the 17 July 2006.

Is there anything he can do at all?

mayb_2

I remember someone posting amongst all of those threads you mention that proof of postage was required for letters sent to the finance company but the finance company did not have to prove that they sent something to you.


The link I have posted here gives some information on the correct application of the time bar rules and how companies are now being held to account when they don't do everything they should do to ensure people can claim within that time bar. One of the things they have to do is ensure that the letters they send are delivered to the correct address etc.
ttp://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages/endowments/article.html?in_article_id=417111&in_page_id=55

I thought that the three year clock started ticking from the red letter stage. If that is so and If the letter your son received was a red letter (saying the morgage was highly likely to shortfall) and it arrived in 2002 then he should have received a warning letter 6 months before the cut off date - that should have been sometime in 2005. Don't know - but I am sure others here like vinno could advise you better on this but it is just a thought you could challenge it if they didn't play the game by the rules (their rules after all).

mr_nice_5

I have just recieved a letter from Windsor life stating that they have turned down my complaint for the following reasons ...

1/ I complained on the 22 January 2007 but we sent you a letter showing the projected maturity values on the 22 August 2000, we sent another projection on the 7th February.

2/ I complained more than 6 years from the date that I received advice on the sale policy

3/ I have not provided any evidence to suggest that I have only first become aware of the need to complain within the last 3 years

4/ I have not brought to their attention any exceptional circumstances

we also sent you a fact sheet from the FSA outling how to complain.

Is there anything else I can do, I was out of the country for 2 years in the middle east from 2001 to 2003,
Any advice greatfully accepted else I will put it all to bed and learn from the mistake.
Thanks.

mayb_2

That all sounds a bit strange. Are they saying the letters they sent you were warning you of a highly likely shortfall and you did not complain at the time or within three years of receiving them? Have they sent you any projections since 2000 - did they indicate a shortfall was highly likely? Did they warn you that the time to make a complaint was running out? etc etc.

If they warned you in 2000 then 3 years would bring you to 2003 and as you were not in the country and presumably can prove that - perhaps that is an exceptional circumstance?

They presumably have not responded to you regarding your complaint of misselling only to tell you that you cannot complain. Some of the advice on the weblink mentioned above might help you if it is a time bar thing. Perhaps you can challenge them on that basis.

I don't think the number of years that have passed since you purchased the endowment is relevant - many claims talked about on this site are on policies older than that.

Funny how it is not about whether people were actually missold their policies now but whether the companies concerned can legitimatly refuse to deal with you whether you were missold or not!

vinno65

Hi Mr Nice,
if the reprojection letters from 2000 warn of a "high risk" of a shortfall and show a projected shortfall at all 3 % rates then this is deemed a red letter by the FOS and thus you wil be time barred from bringing the complaint to them.You can try and explain that you were out of the country but I wouldn't hold you breath. Alternatively you could take the firm to court.

regards Vinno

p.s. if the letters use the words "significant risk" and show a shortfall at only 2 or 1 of the % rates then this is deemed only amber (although it's telling you the same thing i.e. there's a risk of a shortfall) and in the FSA/FOS's infinite wisdom the time bar clock doesn't start ticking. Go figure!!

Tardis_2

My brother was advised approx 3 months ago by Legal & General that they had mis sold him an endowment mortgage(he has since sold the property and relocated) and they have made him an offer of £13000 and he would like to know if this is reasonable....how does he calculate himself? Thank you....on his behalf......he has just moved to France and he is having real problems getting connected to the internet.

defender_of_the_weak

A few responses.

Tardis: The offer should include an explanation of the circumstances used in the calculation, so it will say Halifax 95-98, Northern Rock 98-2001 etc etc. If these mirror his mortgage details then the offer is probably accurate.

Happyjo: Probably nothing more can be done, this is one of the inequalities of the system, you need to prove that something was posted the big companies just have to say they did it. The Ombudsman supports this position on the grounds that people might lie about posting to avoid a time bar (like the insurance companies don't lie!!!)

Mrnice: Bad news again, if Windsor wrote in 2000, then you were timebarred in 2003. Put it to bed

mr_nice_5

Many thanks for your input guys it's appreciated. Windsor life did enclose projection letters at 4%, 6% and 8% in August 2000 and another in February 2003 confirming it was a high risk..... I am going to write back saying that I was out of the country but like someone else says I am not holding my breath, still worth a try eh
Thanks.