Axa Sunlife

ReportInvestor

Readers' Digest would say that they can't be held responsible for poor stock market performance 2001-6.

But I think technically / legally you will find that you bought the product direct from Axa without any advice from anyone .

So no-one is officially responsible but you.

BONJOEY

thank you i will look into this matter with the fsa as advised by cab

ReportInvestor

here's the story of someone who paid £60K into Scottish Widows over 10 years and got back £59,700 :eek:

"....Scottish Widows says it cannot entertain a misselling claim as Ms Georges bought it "without advice. There are warnings."

Ms Georges is taking Widows to the Ombudsman.

And these same insurers are looking like they will the run the government's new Turner pension scheme. Next week they are likely to provide "conclusive" evidence that Turner's proposed charges are impossibly low.

dunstonh

ReportInvestor wrote:

here's the story of someone who paid £60K into Scottish Widows over 10 years and got back £59,700 :eek:

"....Scottish Widows says it cannot entertain a misselling claim as Ms Georges bought it "without advice. There are warnings."

Ms Georges is taking Widows to the Ombudsman.

And these same insurers are looking like they will the run the government's new Turner pension scheme. Next week they are likely to provide "conclusive" evidence that Turner's proposed charges are impossibly low.

The ombudsman will reject her case unless they can find something wrong with the marketing material. If you buy direct, you are taking on responsibility for your actions. Unless there are some material facts wrong in the documentation, you dont have much of a chance.

We also have to remember that these plans were already going obsolete 10 years ago and whilst some advice channels did cling on until 1998, the writing was already on the wall.

I'm afraid I have little sympathy for her. Is she going to change the engine in her car herself next time and put the engine in upside down and then complain to the car manufacturer for compensation when it doesnt work?

The article is stupid as well.....

A mixture of upfront fees to insurance industry salespeople and hollow "guarantees" of expected growth combine to leave tens of thousands of policies below the water line.

She didnt see a "salesperson" so what has that got to do with her.

ReportInvestor

Hasn't she effectively paid for a portion of these "upfront fees" since [paradoxically] by buying direct, she may have got less bang for her buck in the Scottish Widows WP fund ?

I agree that she won't win with the Ombudsman, just add to the costs of other investors.

ReportInvestor

BONJOEY wrote:

thank you i will look into this matter with the fsa

The FSA is unlikely to help you. It is watching its back in the light of the case being brought by Irwin Mitchell on behalf of RSA with profit bond holders. These people's WP policies no longer have a stock market component (which the original literature said was part of the policy) and have been sold onto zombie fund consolidator, Resolution Life.

See this Financial Mail editorial

"....Some blame must be shared by the original firms, such as Royal & SunAlliance, which sold these long-term deals, boasting about their size and pedigree, only to abandon their customers when falling markets made the going tough.

But blame must also lie with the watchdog, the Financial Services Authority. It claims to stand guard over the rights of the millions of with-profits policyholders, particularly those managed by new companies such as Resolution.

True, the FSA has focused hard on the capital strength or otherwise of the with-profits funds, but it hasn't much bothered about the niceties of fair investor treatment. Hence, when insurers wanted to reduce risk - and cost to themselves - by selling policyholders' stock market investments and switching to lower-risk, lower growth assets, the FSA was quick to wave the green flag..."

## - The problem partly arises from the FSA's dual role. 1) Overseeing risk in financial markets and 2) overseeing treatement of investors. 1) overrides 2) so that the FSA will do SFA in most cases.

myrtle_2

I have one of these policies, not sure exactly without looking it up when it started, either 2 or 3 years ago...so am I right in thinking that if the policy was taken out between 2002 - 2004 because of the mis-selling fine I should be able to get all my money back and invest it elsewhere?

myrtle_2

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/consumer/pdfs/finproms_bulletin_0503.pdf

is this the FSA article everyone mentions?

ReportInvestor

That link mentions the fine. The link below mentions the key dates you need - ie did you buy the policy between February 2002 & January 2004?

FSA fines Axa SunLife for misleading ads on Bonus Cashbuilder Plus & Guaranteed Over 50s Plan

"....The firm has also been proactive in sending remedial letters, agreed with the FSA, to all BCP customers affected by the inaccurate comparative data. These letters also add clarity to the product's features..."

Does that ring a bell?

No need to go via the FSA. Write to AXA requesting the return of your investments so far plus interest on the grounds that you were misled by the ads which did not clearly identify the risks involved.

myrtle_2

thanks for this, am just on the phone to see what they say..