Act now on mis-sold endowments: new article

dunstonh

I understand that fact finds were updated, but if as he says "signatures were not a requirement" why do 'dated' signatures from 1990 appear on a document dated 1991?
If there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the signatures have been overlaid, because, as he says, it is an inferior copy, why didn't he ask to see the original document?

Factfinds are often updated and re-used. Personally, i dont but then the data is input into software and one press of a button churns out a new factfind. So, there is no requirement for me to use an old one with amendments.

Factfinds do not need to signed. Most of the info in a factfind is factual anyway and where there are explanations of info relating to advice that is "opinion" or comment, then that should appear in the suitability report. That is the document with the most importance.

The response from the FOS seems fine with this particular point.

mayb_2

I don't know about CrazySaver dunstonh but there was a fact find in our case that was full of hand written statements that we knew nothing about - and we didn't sign it. Not a requirement as you say. However, if it is not a requirement to sign it it should not be taken as read that the 'facts' it contains are facts. Also there was no such thing as a suitablility report - so if it was the most important thing and it was missing ?????

TrikerAndBiker

Well finally had the decision from the FSCS and my claim has been rejected! Apparently they are not prepared to take into account the premiums I paid into the endowment policy for the seven years that I had the plan before actually purchasing a property and linking it to a mortgage.

Whilst I understand that the policy could of been a stand alone savings plan I would of thought thought that the fact that I did link it to a mortgage would have proved that that was the original reason we took the plan up.

They (in their calculations) reckon that I am actually 2k better off than if I had gone for a repayments..... try telling me that had we stuck with this policy and tried to pay off our mortgage in 9 years time.... :mad:

Well we surrendered the policy before the decision was given which I think didn't really help but when you are stuck with a poorly performing policy and the end of a special rate on a mortgage looming the words rock and hard place spring to mind.

Well at least I tried!

mayb_2

Sorry to hear that news TrikerAndBiker - you must be pretty fed up. Would you not consider appealing against the decision? What sort of advice did you get when you took the step of linking it to the mortgage - was it with the same company that sold you the endowment? Did the company check it at the time and tell you that it was sufficient to cover the repayment on your mortgage? If you were allowed to take out a mortgage based on the expected return of this endowment to pay it off, that in itself surely says something about the returns expected.

The Ombudsman does not have to compensate you for the fact that the endowment didn't perform but only give redress if you can prove that you did not understand that it needed to perform - that you did not know there was a risk attached. Is this the same for the FSCS? Without a mortgage vehicle at the beginning you are in a difficult position as you cannot prove that it was promised to pay a certain amount and there is no proof that that is what you intended the policy to cover. So - if later it was linked to a mortgage as a repayment vehicle, presumably at this point someone advised you that this was a good and correct step to take. Did they at the same time advise you that there was a risk it wouldn't work? If this was all done by the same company you may be able to link the two together and appeal on that basis. Well - its a thought but probably not a very useful one - best of luck whatever you do.

TrikerAndBiker

mayb wrote: »

Sorry to hear that news TrikerAndBiker - you must be pretty fed up. Would you not consider appealing against the decision? What sort of advice did you get when you took the step of linking it to the mortgage - was it with the same company that sold you the endowment? Did the company check it at the time and tell you that it was sufficient to cover the repayment on your mortgage? If you were allowed to take out a mortgage based on the expected return of this endowment to pay it off, that in itself surely says something about the returns expected.

The Ombudsman does not have to compensate you for the fact that the endowment didn't perform but only give redress if you can prove that you did not understand that it needed to perform - that you did not know there was a risk attached. Is this the same for the FSCS? Without a mortgage vehicle at the beginning you are in a difficult position as you cannot prove that it was promised to pay a certain amount and there is no proof that that is what you intended the policy to cover. So - if later it was linked to a mortgage as a repayment vehicle, presumably at this point someone advised you that this was a good and correct step to take. Did they at the same time advise you that there was a risk it wouldn't work? If this was all done by the same company you may be able to link the two together and appeal on that basis. Well - its a thought but probably not a very useful one - best of luck whatever you do.

The endowment policy was taken out in 1990 with NU thro' an IA, I then took the mortgage out with the Halifax in 1997 and they would not advise on an existing policy. I do still have the original letter from the IA saying that by taking out this policy we were building up the funds to pay off our mortgage and yes, I sent a copy of that letter but its made no difference.

I think I might appeal, its worth trying again

mayb_2

Its always worth a try - especially when you know you are being misjudged - how can they say there was no proof when you have this letter? There are none so blind as those that will not see!

bellas-mummy_2

Hello, just looking for a bit of advice please
My mum has put me in charge of trying to sort out her endowment mortgage as I have sorted out everyones bank charges - only thing is I understand them, but this just baffles me!
She took out an endowment mortgage in 93 on the advice of a financial advisor, and then sold the house in 01. She paid off the mortgage but kept the endowment - does that make sense? Anyway she has only just heard about this endowment malarkey and thinks that she would be about £6/7000 short of what it should be.
As she sold the house but kept the endowment is she still entitled to try and claim? What is my best step to take now - go on the which site recommended in the original article?
Any advice appreciated

dunstonh

As she sold the house but kept the endowment is she still entitled to try and claim?

If she was mis-sold then yes she can try again claim. Many providers have now timebarred complaints and the endowment issue is coming to a close so she may be too late.

Remember that a shortfall projection is not an accurate guide to the likely position on maturity. Many projections do not include terminal bonus or mortgage promise values (where these exist). Some providers are massively off with these due to flaws in the projection system. The end result can vary from a lot worse to a lot better depending on the provider.

If the complaint is accepted and upheld, then its only calculated for the period it was used for the mortgage. In this case 1993-2001. So it isnt a very long period so dont get your mum's hopes up with regards to success or hypthetical amounts.

bellas-mummy_2

thanks for your reply - gives me a good start to getting it under way for her.
Its so confusing!

So is the first step to do a letter to the financial advisor or the mortgage company?

dunstonh

You send it to the advising company, whoever that is. If the lender or insurer didnt sell the policy, they have no liability for any advice given.