Time Barred Endowment! Any advice?

dunstonh

Courts work on the balance of probabilities and all the evidence gathered by the FSA and Consumer's Association etc shows that between 50 and 60% of people were told that endowments would definately pay off the mortgage.

And i though courts worked on the basis of innocent until proven guilty. If 50/60% were assumed to told they would pay off the mortgage, that means 40/50% were not and that is a signifant number and not enough to judge based on probability.

The consumers association is not a good source of information on endowments. They were recommending endomwents themselves until the mid 1990s.

vinno65

Hi Dunstonh, yes innocent till proven guilty, but to prove innocence or guilt a court has to look at the evidence and decide who is telling the truth. The head of the FSA has said that oral evidence is good evidence and shouldn't be dismissed so readily by firms when handling complaints. Yet firms routinely do dismiss evidence that is not backed by documentary proof and FOS agrees with them, contrary to what Mr Tiner told them in his letter of 2002(i'm sure you know of it's contents). Forget about the Consumer's Association evidence if you like but even the FSA puts the figure at 60%. Are you trying to say that salespeople never gave any such guarantees about endowments? Are people who say that they were told that their endowment would definately pay off their mortgage lying? How many endowments do you believe would have been sold had people been made fully aware of the risk. Why do you think that there was a steady decline in the sales of endowments from the early 90's onwards, especially since the introduction of fact finds etc. in 1993 even prior to the stock market collapse of 2000?
regards Vinno

dunstonh

Are you trying to say that salespeople never gave any such guarantees about endowments?

Are you trying to say that they all did?

Yet firms routinely do dismiss evidence that is not backed by documentary proof and FOS agrees with them, contrary to what Mr Tiner told them in his letter of 2002(i'm sure you know of it's contents).

For sometime the stance has been that if it wasnt documented, it didnt happen. There are just as many consumers telling porkies about what was or wasnt said as advisors. That is why documentary evidence is important.

Recent stats have shown that out of 1000 complaints, on average only 25 were genuine mis-sales. Another 225 were paid compensation but not upheld due to insufficient documentation. So, the documentation issue is very important.

Its not worth even suggesting that 100% of endowments were sold correctly. However, that 40% is still a significant number not mis-sold and to assume probability on anything using 60/40 stats is not sound.

vinno65

Hi Dunstonh
No I am not saying that every advisor told people that the endowments would definately pay off the mortgage. However the FSA survey conducted before miss-selling became a major national issue( hence before unscrupulous people realised thay had a chance to make fraudulent claims) puts the figure at between 50 and 60%. If this is remotely near the truth then it is a scandal!.
As regards claims that are paid out due to lack of documentation. Is it possible that the lack of documentation (like in my case) is due to the fact that it never existed! I would agree that there are people out there chancing there arms and getting compensation but this figure will be nowhere need the amount of people who have claims rejected. I believe FP have time barred 700,000 people on the basis of a letter sent out in 2000 that makes no mention of time limits. What about people who were asked about the attitude to risk. They were handed documents and asked to state on a scale of 1-5 say how they felt about investments with regards to their mortgage. Number 1 on this document said something like "cautious about investments" number 5 would say something like "prepared to risk for greater returns", However in the absence of a box that said "not prepared to take a risk" people ticked number 1. These people now have their complaints routinely rejected because they indicated they were prepared to take a cautios investment. You couldn't make it up!!
regards Vinno
P.S. who knows maybe the Judge in my case was sold an endowment and told exactly the same thing!!

defender_of_the_weak

Dunston, you have been reading the ABI stats again which are deliberately flawed. The figures here are being confused between mis-sold and upheld cases.

My bet would be that 80% were originally mis-sold, most of these were sold on the ignorance f the advisers in question not through any malicious act or greed.

Of those people complaining 60-65% have their case upheld.

dunstonh

Of those people complaining 60-65% have their case upheld.

The problem with quoting stats like (and those that I posted) is that you can go to one company and they may not have a single endowment complaint upheld as their documentation was spot on or the other extreme with a different company could have 100% upheld because the documentation was rubbish.

At the end of the day, compensation is being paid for one reason. The client files do not have the documentation to support the sale whether it was sold incorrectly or not.

Is it possible that the lack of documentation (like in my case) is due to the fact that it never existed!

I doubt it ever existed. However, back in the 90s there were concerns over data protection and some companies started destroying the files after the 6th year. This has left those companies in a position that they cannot defend complaints. Other cases you have mergers and the client files being moved around and whenever paper files get moved around, you lose a bunch.

defender_of_the_weak

Dunston, we could argue stats all day mine come from the FSA/FOS across the entire market.

In your response above, there were certainly policies sold with no data at all and I have literally seen the information recorded on the back of a marlboro packet and a pension sold down the pub because the advisers mate had heard on the radio he needed one. After 1988 as well.


Compensation is not only being paid due to poor documentation it is mainly being paid because the advisers wer not properly trained for the task and all the companies wanted were sales. In the trade press this week there are three more warnings of misselling and what appears to be the sharp practice of a number of advisers and still no real requirement for qualifications with any meat behind them

dunstonh

Compensation is not only being paid due to poor documentation it is mainly being paid because the advisers wer not properly trained for the task and all the companies wanted were sales.

I wasnt referring to reasons behind the documentation being at certain levels. Just that it is the documentation that matters. If a product was mis-sold but the documentation exists that makes it appear like it wasn't, then its highly unlikely a complaint would be upheld. Therefore documentation is the most important factor.

It is fair to say that some genuine complaints have failed because the documentation on file appears to make it look a proper sale and equally cases have paid out because the documentation was poor or did not exist.