Does anyone have advice before I fill in my mis-selling forms?

Mumstheword

I complained to NU about the mis-selling of my endowment (in late 1990) using the letter suggested on the Which? site.

I have now got a couple of forms to fill in which the NU sent me.

Before I do so, I wondered if anyone has any advice. Of course, I will be completely truthful(!!) but wondered if there is anything which I should pay attention to, to ensure I get my point across.

Thanks in advance!

Mumxx

Mumstheword

Something else I just thought of.

In my letter to them I asked for a copy of their file regarding my endowment sale. They haven't sent this - I did think they'd ignore that request - do you think I should insist on that, am I entitled to it/do I need it, or just fill in the forms they have sent me and let them deal with it their way?


Thanks in advance,
Mumxx

dunstonh

in my letter to them I asked for a copy of their file regarding my endowment sale. They haven't sent this - I did think they'd ignore that request - do you think I should insist on that, am I entitled to it/do I need it, or just fill in the forms they have sent me and let them deal with it their way?

You are not entitled to it.

hammy_the_hammer

i think i was a mug for telling them i had paid money off my mortgage to try to sort out the mess that was my endowment ..this gets taken into account when they work out the compensation and leaves me with the feeling i have lost even more money....the reasoning is beyond me

mike_the_bike_2

....Sorry one poster has stated you are not entitled to see your file...I am of the opinion you are..perhaps the poster could state the source of his reply...

With reference to the questionnaire they send you...Its designed to catch you out....The way to fill it in is to go to the Ombudsman site and download a copy of the form THEY will send you if you refer the matter to them...cross reference to the form sent to you by the insurance company and fill the questions that are in both...The remainder on the insurance company fom simply strike through and put NOT RELEVANT...

You only need to complete the ones the Ombudsman would need to know and the insurance companies know it!

Mumstheword

:T Thank you all for your thoughts on this.

Mike, thanks for that, I will look for the Ombudsman's form and cross reference as I complete mine.

Hammy, that's great advice, you have reminded me of an important fact which I didn't see as relevant, but which would be used against me if it was the other way round, as in your case. I remortgaged following a house move, and swapped to a repayment mortgage rather than continue to rely on the endowment (kept the endowment going as it wasnt worth cashing in). However, the new mortgage started from scratch with a new 25 years to run. We'd already paid almost 10 years on the old one. So effectively we are 10 years worse off!

Dunstonh, thank you for your reply. I'm not really sure whether to take it that my question has annoyed you? You have given lots of good advice regarding endowment shortfalls, which I have read with interest, and started a new thread as I needed specific last minute reminders to prevent me from including too much info or missing out something crucial.

Just a bit of case history in case anyone spots anything I need to highlight:

Ages at start of endowment: 20 &23
Previous investment history: None!

We got our mortgage through the Leeds Permanent, who recommended the an endowment with the NU. I think at the time they were tied to the NU. I worked in the motor insurance at the NU, so the LP said it was okay to have a direct policy with NU and get staff discount. So our actual endowment was arranged with staff in the life department at NU. We were not asked by either company whether we had any investments, or what our attitude to risk was. We were left with the impression that the endowment would clear the mortgage and leave us with a tidy lump sum. I remember being sure that the lump sum could be nearly as much as the mortgage repayment itself, although being 1990, I can't remember precise conversations. I was given info on returns using 2 interest rates, but told that they had to give us those by law and not to worry about them. I was also told that these figures didnt take into account the huge final bonuses which were added on at the end.
DH wasn't part of these conversations with NU, so was not asked his opinion on anything!

The Leeds Permanent were later taken over by (Ithink) the Halifax?
In 2000 we took out a repayment mortgage with Standard Life, and paid off the Halifax mortgage.

I still look at the figures and wonder what about the final bonuses....won't everything come right in the end? (as in, meet it's target). This is one of the reasons I have left it so long to complain.

On the original paperwork, the assumed rate of return, for illustrative purposes, is £32,200 at 7% and £53,300 at 10.5% based on a mortgage of £40,230.
On my dec04 statement (sorry, can't find my 05 statement just now), the figures are: £23,600 at 4%, £25,900 at 5%, and £28,400 at 6%



Any advice is, and will be, very much appreciated,
Thanks,
Mumxx:)

dunstonh

Dunstonh, thank you for your reply. I'm not really sure whether to take it that my question has annoyed you?

It hasn't. Short answers don't mean I'm annoyed Although with text, its often hard to tell the attitude in which something was written.

....Sorry one poster has stated you are not entitled to see your file...I am of the opinion you are..perhaps the poster could state the source of his reply...

Durant vs FSA in 2003.

Mr Durant unsuccessfully sued Barclays in the 90s and tried, to no avail, to obtain disclosure of various documents which he believed would assit him to re-open his claims or merit an investigation of Barclays conduct. In 2000, he sought the help of the FSA to assist him and asked them to disclose documents it had in relation to his case (that Barclays had supplied them).

Durant then tried to get access citing the DPA as the reason he was allowed access. Anyway cutting to the chase...

"It is not an automatic key to any information, readily accessible or not, of matters in which he may be named or involved. Nor is it to assist him, for example, to obtain discovery of documents that may assist him in litigation or complaints against third parties. It is likely in most cases that only information that named and directly refers to him will qualify."

There is quite a lot of it on the internet. One example site here: http://www.nadpo.org.uk/content/durant

It was quite interesting to finally see organisations stand up to the DPA and not get scared by it. The outcome of the case (which wasnt overturned on appeal) has led to stronger positions being taken by the DPA controllers of companies.

Just a bit of case history in case anyone spots anything I need to highlight:

I fear you have no case to answer. As an employee of Norwich Union, you chose to buy on execution only basis and not seek advice of a Norwich Union advisor. When arranging it direct like you did, there is no advice given. They are just taking instructions.

The Leeds Perm cannot be blamed as they didn't arrange the policy. As a tied agent, their responsibility was to offer you the best product from their product range. They couldn't offer the product terms you wanted so you went direct. Had you bought the product from Leeds Perm, then they would have been responsible.

mike_the_bike_2

Thanks for that Dunstonh...the key in that judgement seems to be "It is likely in most cases that only information that named and directly refers to him will qualify."...This would suggest that any forms or documents that directly rate to the policy holder would be covered under DPA but general documents relating to sale of the policies e.g internal documents would not..

As an aside my experience in requesting my file from two companies..Halifax and Legal & general was that one supplied the information and the other said they didn't have any as at the time (late 80's) they were only duty bound to keep in 6 years..

Mumstheword

dunstonh wrote:

It hasn't. Short answers don't mean I'm annoyed Although with text, its often hard to tell the attitude in which something was written.

thanks:)

I fear you have no case to answer. As an employee of Norwich Union, you chose to buy on execution only basis and not seek advice of a Norwich Union advisor. When arranging it direct like you did, there is no advice given. They are just taking instructions.

The Leeds Perm cannot be blamed as they didn't arrange the policy. As a tied agent, their responsibility was to offer you the best product from their product range. They couldn't offer the product terms you wanted so you went direct. Had you bought the product from Leeds Perm, then they would have been responsible.

Hmm, that's probably the way they will see it too, especially if it 'lets them off the hook' so to speak. The LP said that I could take out my policy direct because of staff discount. I asked the life department about taking out an endowment direct, to cover my mortgage, and they sold it to me as a direct customer. I'm not sure what you mean by an execution basis only, but I had no knowledge at all of endowments (or any other investments). Is it the case then that they didn't have any responsibility to check my attitude to risk, or whether an endowment was right for me? They did everything to do with the endowment, and didnt have any involvement with the LP. Everything was between me and NU. (Apart from LP telling me to have an NU endowment in the first place!!):)

ScoobyZ

Mumstheword wrote:

I complained to NU about the mis-selling of my endowment (in late 1990) using the letter suggested on the Which? site.

I have now got a couple of forms to fill in which the NU sent me.

Before I do so, I wondered if anyone has any advice. Of course, I will be completely truthful(!!) but wondered if there is anything which I should pay attention to, to ensure I get my point across.

Thanks in advance!

Mumxx

I won mine on a small point that I didnt think (at the time) was as relavent as my main one.

Main one, I was told that it was an investment mortgage and that I would have a lump sum that would clear my mortgage and enough over to buy a car or a holiday depending on how it performed.

Minor point I won on is that an alternative repayment mortgage was not discussed so I was unable to make an informed choice.

dunstonh

I'm not sure what you mean by an execution basis only, but I had no knowledge at all of endowments (or any other investments)

Execution only is the technical term for something when you buy direct.

Is it the case then that they didn't have any responsibility to check my attitude to risk, or whether an endowment was right for me?

Correct. When you buy direct you are not getting advice. They are just dealing with your application. This goes for any insurance/investment product. This is why products are cheaper when you do not seek advice (well normally anyway - not always the case but thats another thread). The cost of advice and liability on that advice is not there with direct cases so it can be offered on cheaper terms.

They did everything to do with the endowment, and didnt have any involvement with the LP.

That gets LP off the hook.

Everything was between me and NU.

And as you bought the product rather than being sold the product, that is why you have no-one to complain to.

When you see an advisor, if an independent, they research and recommend the product, provider and funds for you. If tied, they pick the product from their range and put you in the default fund for your attitude to risk (or give you the choice of funds for you to choose if more than one in your risk). They then write a suitability report (used to be called reason why letter) and put a copy of that and all the research, quotes etc on the client file. The application is also submitted with their advisor reference. This is so there is an audit trail of the person giving the advice.

In your case, none of that happened. You contacted NU and said I want the endowment. They said OK, lets fill out the form and then it was processed. No advisor code was on the application, no advice process took place.