Filling out mis-sold endowment forms

Turvey

dunstonh wrote:

I know exactly what you are saying and looking at it from how they look at it. The minute you let on that you cannot remember certain things, then they could argue that you forgot the compliance bits.

I can see where you are coming from now, Thank you for putting it in a way even I could understand :embarasse


And Thank you Mike for your advice, will do it tommorrow at work. Home printer not very good.

defender_of_the_weak

Mike

The Pearl do not work that way, aside from a basic level of incompetence if you do not fill in all the questions

1. They will hold this against the claimant wherever possible
2. They will reduce any compensation by the amount of mortgage saving over the term.

To all posters, yes I know it is against the rules of complaint handling and we have reported them to the FSA for their stance on this. Prudential are generally fair and even handed in the way they deal with complaints.

mike_the_bike_2

Defender...sorry I don't follow you...(And I admit I have had no dealings with Pearl)...If you simply strike out the questions that are NOT on the Ombudsman form and they reject your complaint on that basis then simply refer the matter the Ombudsman..The Ombudsman has decided with there own form which are the pertinant and reasonable questions to ask of complainent

Secondly if they use there own strange calculation to work out compensation for misselling then again simply refer the matter to the Ombudsman...The correct method of calculation to use is as you clearly laid out on the Ombudsman site

dreamylittledream

defender_of_the_weak wrote:

Mike

The Pearl do not work that way, aside from a basic level of incompetence if you do not fill in all the questions

1. They will hold this against the claimant wherever possible
2. They will reduce any compensation by the amount of mortgage saving over the term.

To all posters, yes I know it is against the rules of complaint handling and we have reported them to the FSA for their stance on this. Prudential are generally fair and even handed in the way they deal with complaints.

True but providing you are willing to take matters to the FOS it is irrelevant how you fill out the Pearl questionaire. As long as you have filled in the general information....

Pearl are a law unto themselves admitedly - however they can not take notional costs into account on redress full stop unless they can demonstrate the client has access to the funds now...

defender_of_the_weak

I agree with all the points raised. In a fair honest and decent world they would all be true.

So if you fill in the Pearl form that says I now have £10,000 in the bank, where do you think they will assume it came from? The savings on your endowment policy will obviously have contributed to this amount and therefore can be taken to reduce any offer of compensation. (Pearls view of this)

Mike, if you really believe that referral to FOS will guarantee a fair result I am afraid I have to tell you the truth. The bottom line is, some do, some dont. Most people who get fed a line by a big financial institution that results in less or no compensation accept it.

dreamylittledream

I have yet to see a FOS ruling where notional costs were taken into account (with the exception of staff mortgages). If you disagree with a selling agents offer (after cross referencing it against Ombudsman guidance) then appeal the case. And if neccesary appeal the adjudicators decision. In this sort of case you are unlikely to lose. It will take a while but the more cases sent to the FOS on such grounds the more chance the FSA will take notice...

Anyway Pearl are sporadic but generally better then they were say 5 months ago (where they appeared to use a random number calculator for interest payments as opposed to court rate or BOE+1)

dunstonh

Anyway Pearl are sporadic but generally better then they were say 5 months ago (where they appeared to use a random number calculator for interest payments as opposed to court rate or BOE+1)

I dont deal with them hardly at all on the mortgages side but heavily with pensions (I have transferred over 300 pensions away from them in the last 12 months). I tend to find the information they supply is often incorrect and cannot be relied on. They show their transfer/surrender values on two different sheets. One being a policy details sheet and the other being the projection. I have seen over £5000 difference between the transfer values for the same plan on the same day. They have a big problem with paid up cases too. I had one ex-client who retired on the basis of what Pearl told him his pension was valued at. He sold up and moved up to Norfolk. Went to start the pension and Pearl told him his fund value was wrong and it was over £100k less. They even had the Pearl rep confirm it to them and had every statement for years showing it. They had to equity release and the hassle caused bad health and within 18 months, the husband died. The FOS told Pearl to pay £250 for the inconvenience! To me, that is when the FOS should be acting, not on some the other stupid cases you hear about.

So, I am less than polite about Pearl.

defender_of_the_weak

If only FOS was as good as the publicity. Some of these cases are being ruled on by people with virtually no financial services background. In a recent Ombudsman ruling he completely ignored previous guidance on redress (not an endowment case) as put forward by their own QC in consideration of loss. Made a complete hash of creating a comparative portfolio on which to guage loss (no knowledge of portfolio construction and risk) and our client was offered £161 to compensate him for the £17,000 loss in his portfolio.

Check the Ombudsman website and have a look at how many have a FS history, they may be very capable and have taken qualifications, but this does not give depth of knowledge of the last 20 years of financial services.

EdInvestor

I can't even begin to explain the gross injustice perpetrated by the FOS on the victims of misselling at Equitable Life.Their attitude has been an utter disgrace :mad:

mblm07

I have gone through the Pearl process & successfully got compo on two different policies. DO NOT fill in your current financial situation info - the policy was sold on what you earnt then, not now. Answer questions for your original situation as best you can, don't make anything up just say 'don't know'

The key info. seems to be mortgage history and rates you paid - this helps them calculate what you get back had you been sold a repayment.