Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

poundsshillingsandpence_2

can anyone please confirm the cut off/ start date for addressing mis sold policies.

I applied in Jan 1989, the policy started March 1989 ??
do I have a claim to quickly persue ???

vinno65

dunstonh wrote: »

True. Upheld endowment complaints should never have resulted in a cash payment. That just encouraged people to complain for the hope of a windfall. Upheld complaints should have had a minimum payment on maturity of target amount. As simple as that..

I quite agree Dunston but why wasn't this the case? Perhaps some of the major players didn't have as much faith in the products performing as you do?
I would have thought that if some of the underperforming firms had to make up shortfalls at maturity it could potentially have wiped them out!

Regards Vinno

Art_2

mayb wrote: »

I think you may find the answer to your question is probably a big fat NOTHING don't you? Some were sent for further training so that companies could comply with the requirements of the regulator I think. I also have a feeling that some payment to them continues until you stop paying the premium. I am sure someone will correct that statement if it is wrong - I do know it applies to some types of salesmen. Will be interesting to see the experts replies on that one.

....and remember that some of these policies would have paid hefty commission to the seller. In some cases I am told the commission is in excess of 2% of the sum insured.

Regards,
Art.

dunstonh

....and remember that some of these policies would have paid hefty commission to the seller. In some cases I am told the commission is in excess of 2% of the sum insured.

Commission is typically linked to the monthly premium and the term of the plan. Not the sum assured.

jgriffin88

Thanks to the help and advice from this site it only took 1 phone call, 1 form to complete and bingo - offer of compensation. All this happened in the space of 3 weeks!!! Also claimed back MEAF charges, got a cheque within 7 days after sending a letter from your template. Thanks again.

Mr_helpful

Art wrote: »

....and remember that some of these policies would have paid hefty commission to the seller. In some cases I am told the commission is in excess of 2% of the sum insured.

Regards,
Art.

and I expect you believed them when they said O J Simpson was innocent

Art_2

Mr_helpful wrote: »

and I expect you believed them when they said O J Simpson was innocent

So what level of commission is paid to independent financial advisers?

Regards,
Art.

mayb_2

I expect we will have to ask OJ for an answer to that one Art.

Mr_helpful

mayb wrote: »

I expect we will have to ask OJ for an answer to that one Art.

Just proves what I have been saying all along that people dont read what they are given and then moan about what they have bought. The commission paid has been disclosed on the quotes for the last 10 yrs and probably more.
It varies from contract to contract and the seller may get a clawback of commission if ther customer stops the policy in the first few yrs (usually 4) even if it was not mis sold.

shaymenRup

I'm looking for constructive advise if possible.

What grounds are there for the Ombudsman do over rule the three year rule.

My wife got two Friends Provident Endowments in 1989 and 1991 with her then husband.

In 1996 she divorced and in 1998 she married me. During the divorce settlement , she kept the endowments.
Like now she left all her financial affairs to her husband.
We received the warning letters in 2003, but took no action as I had no idea who originally advised re the endowment mortgage.
Recently whilst sorting out old documentation I found documentation in relation to the financial advice received from Abbey National. We have since written, they forwarded the complaint straight to Friends Provident who they were agents for (if only we had realised.)
They have written back to say we are out of time, but we can complain to the ombudsman. Is it worth bothering?
Secondly as the advice was supposedly joint, will the payment have to be shared with her ex?
The main crux of the argument is that they should both have been advised to take a repayment mortgage. Both in good jobs with structured rises in their salaries. The projected figures are ridiculous for the endowment.