Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

Crazy_Saver

Hi Guys.

I can honestly say that I am really choked. We received a letter from the FOS yesterday basically saying that due to lack of evidence, they are siding with the "firm".

I am shocked at how much of the FOS's findings are based on assumption due to the lack of evidence. Why is it that "we" as the consumer have to back up our complaint with evidence but the words "suggested", and "I cannot say for certain" appear in so often in the FOS report.

I cannot believe how one sided the arguement is!

A few quotes from the report:

"There was no record of any savings or investments held at the time"

"I note however that you were seeking to buy at £65k and planned to 'put down' £10k which suggests that there were some savings held at the time"

This £10k was part of £12k equity that we hoped we would get when we sold our then existing property-as mentioned in the fact find. We only made £6k in the end so only 'put down' £5k. Surely this isn't classed as savings!

Moving on to repaying the mortgage and providing a surplus,

"Whilst I note the representations about this, and while it is possible that you were led to believe that the policy would repay your mortgage and provide a surplus, this is not the same as a binding guarantee from the firm. In this case I have not seen sufficient evidence to establish that the firm gave you a binding guarantee."

No proof either way there!

Risks next,

"You have said that you would not have taken the policy if you had been aware of the risks. You have said that you would have either kept your existing endowment and topped up with a repayment, or taken out a full repayment mortgage.
I cannot say for certain whether you were prepared to take the risks associated with the policy."

The reason that we may have considered keeping our original endowment was because we had a document regarding it stating that "At the end of the the mortgage term you will receive an estimated tax free cash surplus of £47,723."

Moving on to "Churning"

"I cannot say for certain whether you were advised to cancel your existing policies, but it seems to me likely that the policies were at least discussed with you. On the balance of probabilities, it seems to me that the idea of the increased cover you required at a lower cost could have been appealing to you, and that you were interested in being insured with a provider shown historically to have been a consistently top performer.
I have therefore not seen sufficient evidence to allow me safely to conclude that your action to cancel the policies was as a result of specific advice you received from the firm, rather than your own personal choice."

Balance of probabilities!!!:mad:
Imagine if we had tried that one on the complaint form!:rotfl:
Would we really have gone to the firm with that attitude, would we really have cared who the cover was with? I don't think so. As I have said in many previous posts, we were young, naive, completely clueless when it came to insurance policies and just keen to get decent advice on a subject we knew very little about.

Lastly, tampered documents,

"I note that the signatures are dated 4.10.90. The record was made at the first meeting and updated in May 1991. There is insufficient evidence for me to be able to conclude that the signatures have been 'overlaid' and, in any case, I have no reason to doubt that the information does not reflect your circumstaces at the time."

So even though the signatures are for the wrong date and the document is quite obviously a photocopy of more than one piece of paper, it is irrelevent because the FOS adjudicator has already made his/her mind up:cool:

It really does amaze me that this report is based on "might have been's", "it seem's likely's" and "cannot say for certain's".

I so wish that I knew then what I know now. I really am a genuine claimant who is looking at a £30k shortfall. I am sure that at least if we had kept our original endowment then maybe we would have had a better case. It all seems so easy for other people.

Any way, ranting over. I will get another surrender value tomorrow when Zurich are open and will then be back on these boards to get some advice as to how we can just move on and try and make up some of the shortfall.

Thanks to all of you who tried to help me with my case: dunstonh, vinno65, mayb, DOTW, Edinvestor and many others.:beer:

Regards

Crazy Saver

mayb_2

Oh CrazySaver I am so so sorry to hear this news.

I had so much of the same stuff in my letters from the Ombudsman - anyway they could, they cast doubt on our integrity and on the facts - we also had altered documents, churning, falsely copied documents etc all sorts of suppositions made and their interpretaion was always in favour of the company. It is so upsetting but there is nowhere to go from here but a court of law - believe me I tried.

I very much admire your response - I spent two years fighting this to no avail. I don't regret it - it was something I needed to do, but they have this thing so covered that it was probably a waste of time. Like you in the end I just had to sit down and work a way out of the financial mess they left me in.

I do hope it works out and wish you the very best of outcomes.

p.s. It wouldn't hurt to complain about the Ombudsman Service - it wont get you anywhere with your claim - you are not allowed to complain about the outcome??- only the service you received, but a drip drip may create an ocean sometime.

Mr_helpful

Crazy_Saver wrote: »

This £10k was part of £12k equity that we hoped we would get when we sold our then existing property-as mentioned in the fact find. We only made £6k in the end so only 'put down' £5k. Surely this isn't classed as savings!

Were you told by the estate agent that there was a risk you might not get back from your house all that was expected?

dunstonh

You can appeal against the decision and give your comments in response.

However, in respect of the following points, i will note a few things.

"There was no record of any savings or investments held at the time"

"I note however that you were seeking to buy at £65k and planned to 'put down' £10k which suggests that there were some savings held at the time"

This £10k was part of £12k equity that we hoped we would get when we sold our then existing property-as mentioned in the fact find. We only made £6k in the end so only 'put down' £5k. Surely this isn't classed as savings!

Tell them that. It may be an assumption being made based on what they know and correct data may change that decision. However, that alone is unlikely turn a complaint into an upheld.

Moving on to repaying the mortgage and providing a surplus,

"Whilst I note the representations about this, and while it is possible that you were led to believe that the policy would repay your mortgage and provide a surplus, this is not the same as a binding guarantee from the firm. In this case I have not seen sufficient evidence to establish that the firm gave you a binding guarantee."

No proof either way there!

So, there is no proof to back up what you are saying and no evidence it was said on their files. In that case, they cannot uphold it on that. If that was the case, then everyone could lie if they wanted to.

"You have said that you would not have taken the policy if you had been aware of the risks. You have said that you would have either kept your existing endowment and topped up with a repayment, or taken out a full repayment mortgage.
I cannot say for certain whether you were prepared to take the risks associated with the policy."

The reason that we may have considered keeping our original endowment was because we had a document regarding it stating that "At the end of the the mortgage term you will receive an estimated tax free cash surplus of £47,723."

Again, point it out but if the projections used the [now] FSA rates then they are compliant. Just as projections given today in statements etc are no indication of future returns, that would have been the case back then as well.

This point suggests you were happy to take the risk if you thought it was going to pay the lump sum.

Moving on to "Churning"

"I cannot say for certain whether you were advised to cancel your existing policies, but it seems to me likely that the policies were at least discussed with you. On the balance of probabilities, it seems to me that the idea of the increased cover you required at a lower cost could have been appealing to you, and that you were interested in being insured with a provider shown historically to have been a consistently top performer.
I have therefore not seen sufficient evidence to allow me safely to conclude that your action to cancel the policies was as a result of specific advice you received from the firm, rather than your own personal choice."

That is a fair point. Churning as you put it is not a mis-sale. If it is unjustified then it is. If it is justified then it isnt. The benefit in this case is that a replacement policy met the requirements of your new mortgage figure but was also cheaper. There may be negatives (which are probably not documented to todays standards) but the FOS appear to accept that you would go with the cheapest option.

It really does amaze me that this report is based on "might have been's", "it seem's likely's" and "cannot say for certain's".

The problem is that paper documentation is king. You could claim they said anything or nothing. They can claim they did say all the right things. Over the years people cannot really remember what was and wasnt said in detail. So the documentation is the important bit. If the documents appear to be mostly compliant in their detail and information, then it is hard for them to not support the company point of view without you proving evidence otherwise.

If the documents do not contain most of the warnings then it starts swinging in your favour. If they do, then it swings in their favour.

With regards to your paperwork tampering, the FOS could be basing a lot of that on the belief that Zurich tied salesforce advisers do not maintain their own client files. So, the advisers wouldnt have the ability to change documents later on down the road. So, you are accusing them of making changes they cannot do. It would require the complaints handler at Zurich to do it and there is little reason to believe they would commit fraud, face the sack and suffer the career prospects that go with that for something that is of no benefit to them and doesnt even benefit the adviser as they have no financial liability for it either.

Like before, I am not making comments on your rights or wrongs in this issue. Just taking an overview position on what you have said.

mayb_2

Dunstonh in the light of what is known about the sales of these policies at the time - particularly by tied agents - why do you think it is that the Ombudsman gives benefit of the doubt always to the company not to the complainant? If there is no proof either way it is as likely, and I and Crazy Saver know that it is so, that the other side is bending the truth to put it mildly. If they put their hands up and agreed to the missale argument in the first place it would never get to the Ombudsman. I know for a fact that both the Salesman and the Company lied to the Ombudsman - changed the facts and the documents to suit their case. They actually had no documents to support their case - didn't supply the paperwork he requested from them and so the Ombudsman decided to use his experience of such sales????? instead of the evidence put in front of him. So please can we take some time to have some sympathy for Crazy Saver's predicament before we re run the tired old arguments in favour of the - records didn't show- poor memory of what happened - convenient lapse of recall - could be taken either way type of arguments that only ever appear to apply to the one who lost out i.e. the complainant.

Let us not forget that the Company has a band of lawyers to represent its case and tell them what to say and do in defence of their position. The individual is just that - an individual who should expect to be treated as someone of integrity unless their is sure evidence to doubt that fact.

dunstonh

why do you think it is that the Ombudsman gives benefit of the doubt always to the company not to the complainant?

It doesnt.

If there is no proof either way it is as likely, and I and Crazy Saver know that it is so, that the other side is bending the truth to put it mildly.

On 50/50 cases, they have to look at the balance of probability and they will examine what has been said in the complaint and will examine the files. If the client file is pretty strong, then they need something to alter that balance and there isnt enough here to change that balance. You need that smoking gun.

Remember, verbal means little or nothing. I could do a case with you documented to the top level and then you could complain and accuse me of saying or not saying all sorts of things. Why should the FOS believe you more than me? Given the number of fraudulent complaints, it would be wrong to assume that everything consumers say is going to be right.

There are four sides to every story. What you say happened, What they say happened, what really happened and then how its interpreted. The FOS cover the latter. And that is a damned difficult position to be in and from that there will be winners or losers. No system is ever going to be foolproof.

So please can we take some time to have some sympathy for Crazy Saver's predicament before we re run the tired old arguments in favour of the - records didn't show- poor memory of what happened - convenient lapse of recall - could be taken either way type of arguments that only ever appear to apply to the one who lost out i.e. the complainant.

And what help is that going to be to Crazy Saver?

It's better he knows possibly why the result has happened and any potential recourse he can take from that.

Let us not forget that the Company has a band of lawyers to represent its case and tell them what to say and do in defence of their position.

Erm, no they dont. Not at the level individual complaints are dealt with. They may have on corporate decisions but not individual complaints.

defender_of_the_weak

An adjudicators decision can be appealed, but based on what you have posted to date you should concentrate on the technical issues of the case to demonstrate unsuitability. Bearing in mind the existing endowment the key issue is the cost of the churn (what you lost by surrendering or replacing the original policy) and the alleged fraud.

Dunston, the band of lawyers may not deal with every complaint but they certainly steer the actions of the review team and will become involved in contentious cases.

CS, was the complaint actually against Zurich or a broker

Crazy_Saver

Hi DOTW.

The complaint is against an individual advisor working for a large firm. They weren't tied to an estate agency either.

Cheers

mayb_2

Will somebody point me to the official record of fraudulent claims made to the Ombudsman. Or are we just assuming that if a claim was not upheld it was fraudulent? Where is the record kept of % claims not upheld by the Ombudsman?

In my case the Ombudsman took a three line report of an alleged conversation with the salesman concerned that he had done everything he should have done at the point of sale - as proof that everything was done -despite a lack of paperwork to support that contention. The report was not addressed to anyone in particular and was not signed by anyone. Like Crazy Saver the Ombudsman was quite happy to make suppositions of what happened when there was nothing to go on. Sorry dunstonh but I don't agree with your statement "Remember, verbal means little or nothing". As I said this appears only to apply to the complainant.

Now the mainstay appears to be what the FO thinks happened. No such thing as innocent until proven guilty for the complainant then. If the FO contends that what you said happened was not the case he is basically accusing you of making a fraudulent claim or at best of lying.

The Ombudsman I dealt with sounded about 12 - it was hard to accept that the basis of his decision was his experience of what would have happened during the sale when he was probably still in the junior school at the time.

Mr_helpful

mayb wrote: »

Will somebody point me to the official record of fraudulent claims made to the Ombudsman. Or are we just assuming that if a claim was not upheld it was fraudulent? Where is the record kept of % claims not upheld by the Ombudsman?

In my case the Ombudsman took a three line report of an alleged conversation with the salesman concerned that he had done everything he should have done at the point of sale - as proof that everything was done -despite a lack of paperwork to support that contention. The report was not addressed to anyone in particular and was not signed by anyone. Like Crazy Saver the Ombudsman was quite happy to make suppositions of what happened when there was nothing to go on. Sorry dunstonh but I don't agree with your statement "Remember, verbal means little or nothing". As I said this appears only to apply to the complainant.

Now the mainstay appears to be what the FO thinks happened. No such thing as innocent until proven guilty for the complainant then. If the FO contends that what you said happened was not the case he is basically accusing you of making a fraudulent claim or at best of lying.

The Ombudsman I dealt with sounded about 12 - it was hard to accept that the basis of his decision was his experience of what would have happened during the sale when he was probably still in the junior school at the time.

I wouldnt want you on jury service. If there is no evidence either way then the complaint has to be turned down (innocent until proved guilty). How is it that your memory is perfect and others are not. Most people cant remember what they did last week but some claimants can remember the whole conversation from 20 yrs ago. They are that clever yet they took no interest in all the money they spent until thay got a letter saying that the target was unlikely to be met. Yes very often peoples largest investment and they dont even read the first page of the paperwork or in your case didnt even get anything in writing. I think had you exercised due care and dilligence people might have more sympathy but to label all financial advisers crooks based on your limited experience is a bit rum.