Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

andy&shaz_stringer

Help required please...

I complained about being mis-sold my policy at the begining of March this year, I received a letter back from Norwich Union stating the following:

I am not allowed to complain following three years after a letter was issued regarding a potential short fall. This I received in 2003. Although I am disappointed in the original figure is likely not to be reached i was complaining about the way i was sold the policy. Can I take my matter further or is it best just to give up???

mayb_2

Unfortunately andy&shazstringer you have been time barred.

It is not possible to make a complaint of misselling based on the fact that the policy did not perform You can only complain that you were missold the policy and did not know there was a risk that it would not reach its target amount. With new rules imposed by the FSA you must make this complaint to the company within three years of receiving what is known as a red letter - this is a letter warning you that it is likely that your policy will not reach its target - you received this in 2003. You should have received another warning letter 6 months before the end of the three year period telling you time was running out.

andy&shaz_stringer

mayb wrote: »

Unfortunately andy&shazstringer you have been time barred.

It is not possible to make a complaint of misselling based on the fact that the policy did not perform You can only complain that you were missold the policy and did not know there was a risk that it would not reach its target amount. With new rules imposed by the FSA you must make this complaint to the company within three years of receiving what is known as a red letter - this is a letter warning you that it is likely that your policy will not reach its target - you received this in 2003. You should have received another warning letter 6 months before the end of the three year period telling you time was running out.

I did receive a letter but did not read it properly. I only want to complain now because my attitude to risk was not fully established and was sold it under false pretenses??

dunstonh

A lot of NU plans are not too bad though. The projections do not normally include the current terminal bonus or the mortgage promise value. Both of which need to be added to projections to get a more realistic idea of where the policy is.

So, do not rely on the projections alone.

andy&shaz_stringer

dunstonh wrote: »

A lot of NU plans are not too bad though. The projections do not normally include the current terminal bonus or the mortgage promise value. Both of which need to be added to projections to get a more realistic idea of where the policy is.

So, do not rely on the projections alone.

Do you think i should write again stating the mis-selling point risk etc. I know its too late regarding the projections.

dunstonh

If you are time barred, then you are time barred. Its too late unless you have a very good reason not to have complained for three years since you became aware of the risk of shortfall. (hospitalisation and overseas travel for example).

vinno65

dunstonh wrote: »

Personally I have mixed views on the time bar. One is that someone shouldnt be time barred as a mis-sale is a mis-sale. However, the other side is that those that knew there was a risk could hedge their bets and wait to see if the endowment ends up in surplus or not. If surplus, they take the profit, if shortfall they complain. The time bar removes that opportunistic individual..

Dunston, explain to me then why, when the endowment problem blew up did companies not say to the FSA, "look instead of making us pay redress for miss-sales why don't we let policies mature and if there is a shortfall we'll make up the difference"?. There can only be one answer and that is because they were not prepared to take the risk.
So having overcome that hurdle they sought a way of tackling the problem of large amounts of redress. Now you know my views,we disagree on the lack of documentation that allows people to win their complaint. You say poor record keeping, I say there never were any records so hoorah for the time bar!
It has nothing to do with worry over oppurtunistic punters waiting till term to see if they should complain or not.It's a way of never having to even investigate the merits of a complaint. It might be interesting to see (even if a complaint is technically time barred) whether it is valid or not, wouldn't you agree?
And let's also remember that when the letters started flying out in 2000 there was no mention of time bars, indeed when the companies came before the House of Commons only 3 at the time were imposing them, with the other firms saying they had no plans to. How many firms now don't impose a time bar?
Hundreds of thousands have been unfairly time barred by the 2000 letters with firms refusing to even investigate if there complaint was valid. This is completely unjust and has been carried out by the firms with the full backing of the FSA who would not make the 2004 change in the rules retrospective. Explain to me how that is in any way fair?

regards Vinno

vinno65

Mr Helpful,

I bet Dunston is glad he has you on his side!!

"So you were sold on the greed factor/ Nothing to be ashamed of it happened rather a lot"

A mortgage advisor offers you two routes, one a repyment that does just that repays your mortgage, or an endowment that is not only cheaper per month, and not only pays off your mortgage (just like the repayment),But also leaves you a tax free lump sum. Then it would be stupidity to take the repayment. It has nothing to do with greed it's common sense!

"Its always good when someone can remember exactly what wasn't said. You wern't expecting to hear anything bad so you didn't. Once again a normal human reaction. People have a much better remembering skill when someone is talking nice things that you want to hear and not so good skill when they say something you didn't want to hear"

Are you seriously trying to say that I sat there while it was explained to me that my morgage would be paid and I would have a lump sum at term, but blah blah blahed with my fingers in my ears whilst the kindly advisor pointed out that what she had just told me was infact complete balls and that my mortgage was not actually guaranteed to be paid off and also there was a good risk of a sunsatantial shortfall that I would have to come up with or I might lose my house.

I repeat you talk garbage

Vinno

vinno65

Mr Helpful

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmtreasy/394/39406.htm

?????

Vinno

Mr_helpful

vinno65 wrote: »

Mr Helpful,

I bet Dunston is glad he has you on his side!!

"So you were sold on the greed factor/ Nothing to be ashamed of it happened rather a lot"

A mortgage advisor offers you two routes, one a repyment that does just that repays your mortgage, or an endowment that is not only cheaper per month, and not only pays off your mortgage (just like the repayment),But also leaves you a tax free lump sum. Then it would be stupidity to take the repayment. It has nothing to do with greed it's common sense!

You havent heard if a story sounds too good to be true it probably is. Why would the repayment mortgage have ever been invented. You must have thought different risk or no one would buy an endowment

"Its always good when someone can remember exactly what wasn't said. You wern't expecting to hear anything bad so you didn't. Once again a normal human reaction. People have a much better remembering skill when someone is talking nice things that you want to hear and not so good skill when they say something you didn't want to hear"

Are you seriously trying to say that I sat there while it was explained to me that my morgage would be paid and I would have a lump sum at term, but blah blah blahed with my fingers in my ears whilst the kindly advisor pointed out that what she had just told me was infact complete balls and that my mortgage was not actually guaranteed to be paid off and also there was a good risk of a sunsatantial shortfall that I would have to come up with or I might lose my house.

Im not saying you had fingers in your ears but its human reaction to switch off if things are being said in the right way

I repeat you talk garbage

Yes very successful garbage

Vinno

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../394/39406.htm

Seen it before this is largely where the FSA realised Sales training works and people can be sold things easily and largely have poor recollection of the sale. In truth no one really has much of a clue as to what was miss sold and what wasnt because they wernt at the sale but unfortunately often when preople are claiming they have a too perfect memory