Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

mayb_2

Yes we have been through these hoops before Mrhelpfull and I dont intend to go through them again. I wouldn't want you on a jury either as you don't even see two sides to anything let alone the four dunstonh always finds.

In the end it is up to CrazySaver to decide what to do in this case and this appears to be to put it into history and move on. I have respect for that.

By the way Mrhelful again you have avoided answering the questions - where are the figures to be found for the fraudlulent claims made to the Ombudsman? You who know so much about them must surely know where these are kept.

How many more of the claims will be rejected with the instigation of the time bar I wonder? So many more people have put in their claims to beat this that the percentages not upheld are bound to go up. Otherwise the poor financial services industry could take a big hit and that is never going to be allowed to happen. Oh no I forgot - there will be an increase in fraudulent claims to account for that.

dunstonh

Rob McIvor of the FSA said:
"The uphold rate is about 45pc, so there are more spurious than valid complaints going in. This culture of complaining on the off chance is on the increase. "All of our own consumer information has tried to make it very clear that people should only complain if they feel they have been mis-sold, not simply because they have suffered a shortfall. But not all of the information consumers have been receiving has been so clear."

Sir Howard Davies when he was head of the FSA:
In a valedictory speech last Thursday, Davies said that the task of compensating genuine victims of mis-selling was "not being assisted by those who appear to believe that every loss to investors, whatever the cause, should be compensated". That way madness lies, he said.
The complaints systems of companies accused of mis-selling endowment mortgages were "snowed under" with indiscriminate claims for compensation, many of which had little prospect of success. The resultant logjam was delaying the resolution of worthwhile claims, Davies said.

Sir Howard Davies chairman of the Financial Service Authority said about
Endowment Mortgages and complainants:-

"I think quite a lot of people were aware that they were taking an equity risk. Some of the people who are now complaining knew perfectly well what they were doing. I've met some myself who have said to me, 'I'll try on a complaint, why not?'."

Source. Daily Telegraph: 'It cannot be a race in which all win prizes'

Conservatives want to introduce a £50 claim fee to reduce the number of frivolous claims and help curb the compensation culture
http://www.money.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml;sessionid=H3TEB4FBOEORTQFIQMFSM5WAVCBQ0JVC?xml=/money/2005/04/06/cmncharge06.xml&menuId=244&sSheet=/money/2005/04/04/ixfrontperson.html&menuId=244&_requestid=53862

Mr_helpful

MayB
Quote from another thread on this board

"Also, when it comes to "self-certification" mortgages, how much of a liberty with the truth can I get away with, given that I'm completely confident in my ability to match the payments? How much checking is standard when it's self certifying?"

Just about the same as we advisers get with some of the public whan it comes to endowments. There are genuine cases but the non genuine make it difficult to see who is genuine. As Dunston says the minority are genuine.

Mr_helpful

OH look another one from this forum

"If i need some one to say im earning extra income to boost up my income for my mortgage application, but thisisnt exactly gospel, do they check withthe tax office when the employer ref is completed ?? "

Crazy_Saver

Originally posted by Mr helpful
OH look another one from this forum

"If i need some one to say im earning extra income to boost up my income for my mortgage application, but thisisnt exactly gospel, do they check withthe tax office when the employer ref is completed ?? "

I saw this one as well and felt the same as you Mr helpful, but the awful thought that I had was that this is the sort of person who will probably get away with that they are doing, and make a fortune along the way. It's posters like this that make it difficult for the genuine people to get a fair hearing.

We really shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush. Much the same as it isn't fair that few "dodgy" FA's from the past have made it hard for many people to trust others in the same field today.

mayb_2

(http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/Library/...001/sp73.shtml

The above is a link to a speach made by the same Sir Howard Davis in 2001 -it involves the misselling of with profits policies (endowments in another life form) and in which he takes a very different view. In what year would you say your quotes came from dunstonh? They do not refer to the number of fraudulent claims and the fact that many claims would not have a hope of succeeding does not mean that they were fraudulent. I have this feeling that those people hobnobbing with Sir Howard Davis were on a different financial plane than most of us who were genuinely missold our policies. I can't imagine chatting with him and saying 'I'll try on a complaint, why not?'."

Taken from that article in the Daily Telegraph:

"The FOS said consumers were far more aware of their right to complain today and denied it encouraged frivolous complaints.

The FSA said it was "inappropriate to comment on party policy documents" with an election just weeks away."

It always pays to read the whole thing as quotes taken out of context can be made to say whatever you want them to don't you think?

I don't think what the Conservatives may or may not be planning to do proves anything other than their support for the financial services industry. Wonder why they would do that?

Mrhelpful forgive me if I am not clever enough to see the relevance of what you are saying with your quotes from other sites. I would also point out that your memory is so short that you cannot remember that we have been through this all before on oanother thread and I would refer you to all of the answers I presented you with then - you can probably track them back through the written replies - enough evidence for both of us I am sure.

So I take it nobody has a published list of figures for the fraudulent claims to the Ombudsman then? Even dunstonh's Telegraph says the upheld complaints are running at about 42% but does not claim that this represents the amount of them found to be fraudulent - and 42% can not be considered a majority even in its entirety. You should remember also that the Ombudsman will not consider a complaint that does not meet certain criteria in the first instance and some will therefore be rejected before consideration of the detail. The person making the complaint will not necessarily be able to make that complaint correctly without assistance, this does not mean it was not valid. Also remember that the FOS does not act in the same way as a court of law. Its failure to uphold a complaint is just that. It does not mean that the complaint would necessarily fail in a court. That is why I am asking for the figures for fraudulent claims to the Ombudsman. If there are none then you are just maintaining that all failed claims are fraudulent. Not so.

Mr_helpful

Crazy_Saver wrote: »

I saw this one as well and felt the same as you Mr helpful, but the awful thought that I had was that this is the sort of person who will probably get away with that they are doing, and make a fortune along the way. It's posters like this that make it difficult for the genuine people to get a fair hearing.

We really shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush. Much the same as it isn't fair that few "dodgy" FA's from the past have made it hard for many people to trust others in the same field today.

I agree 100% Unfortunately the number of bogus claims badly affect the people who have been ripped off because yes all people do get tarred with the same brush. There are probably just as many cases that have been paid compensation as those that should have got it and didnt. You have to thank the people that are saying things like claim anyway what have you got to lose.
Mayb cant see what i was on about with the two posts but all I was doing was showing that in just 1 day I had found two posters appearing to be happy to commit fraud just to get some money. This is what happens everday and the FOS have a hard job sorting out what is False Memory, Selective memory and genuine memory. The trouble is lack of performance is not a ground for complaint but most complaints relate to this and so as advisers we have often been asked how to get round the problem. Some claims may be genuinely mis guided and some fraudulent its not the Fos's job to apportion a tag of fraud on the claims so Mayb is unlikely to get her figures. She knows full well the courts would have to decide fraud or not.

mayb_2

Just a point or two Mrhelpful if you are ready to believe that just today two people are "happy to commit fraud just to get some money" - why do you find it so difficult to accept that there were as many salesmen happy to miss sell an Endowment Policy just to earn the lucrative commission?

On the subject of my figures I will point you to the additional comments I have added to my last post. The Telegraph was most useful.

I am unlikely to get my figures true - if I can't get my figures then you certainly can't have them either so claims of high levels of fraud are just that - your claims not facts. If the Ombudsman isn't making them for himself then perhaps you and dunstonh should not be doing it on his behalf.

It is not good enough to say that most complaints are based on lack of performance. Of course they will be - if you did not know that performance was an issue you are bound to be shocked when these things don't deliver. It is likely that people may focus on that when they make their complaint. The point should be whether they knew that performance was an issue when they bought the product - not that they are referring to it now.

"FOS have a hard job sorting out what is False Memory, Selective memory and genuine memory." except when the memory is the one claimed by the company concerned of course - and then there is the FOS's own memory of how these sales were carried out to contend with as well. Perhaps dunstonh is correct that there are four sides to every story - certainly four types of memory to chose from.

Crazy_Saver

Originally posted by Mr helpful
I agree 100% Unfortunately the number of bogus claims badly affect the people who have been ripped off because yes all people do get tarred with the same brush. There are probably just as many cases that have been paid compensation as those that should have got it and didnt. You have to thank the people that are saying things like claim anyway what have you got to lose.
Mayb cant see what i was on about with the two posts but all I was doing was showing that in just 1 day I had found two posters appearing to be happy to commit fraud just to get some money. This is what happens everday and the FOS have a hard job sorting out what is False Memory, Selective memory and genuine memory. The trouble is lack of performance is not a ground for complaint but most complaints relate to this and so as advisers we have often been asked how to get round the problem. Some claims may be genuinely mis guided and some fraudulent its not the Fos's job to apportion a tag of fraud on the claims so Mayb is unlikely to get her figures. She knows full well the courts would have to decide fraud or not.

Mr helpful, from the outside looking in, it is easy to see both sides of your discussion with mayb.

She, like myself feels that "the system" has let her and her family down badly. I do not know yours or most of the other posters financial background. I am looking at things from the point of view of someone who is honest, has worked hard all their life and doesn't have easy access to the funds to make up a £30k mortgage shortfall.

Mayb is right, and I have decided to put this all down to experience. I am posting frantically on the Savings and Investments boards in the hope of recouping some of the shortfall.

I know as well as everyone else that "bad performance" isn't grounds for complaint, but it is a very "bitter pill to swallow" after trusting "the system" and looking forward to that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that was painted for my husband and I back in the 80s/90s.

I know 1991 was a long time ago, but I do remember our advisor being a very bolshy, confident woman with the typical "don't worry leave it all up to me" attitude. If I had come across her now I would see through her straight away and wouldn't give her the time of day, but alas I have age and wisdom on my side now.

Remeber Mr helpful.

HELL HATH NO FURY LIKE A WOMAN SCORNED:mad:

mayb_2

Sorry Crazy Saver I added to my post before you submitted yours - hope you don't regret the thanks. I love the way you keep your cool when all about you are losing theirs. Good Luck.