Prudential reject missold claim. Help required

EdInvestor

AFAIK it has to be red in order to start the timebar ticking.In addition the letter has to mentione that there is a strong risk of shortfall.

Complaints are usually based on the complainant's statement that the advisor did not correctly judge his attitude to risk.That is, he had been made aware there was a risk the endowment might not pay off the mortgage, he would not have bought the policy.

http://www.which.co.uk/advice/mis-sold-endowments-how-to-claim/index.jsp

Which has a useful guide and letter generator.

In many cases the providers are unable to defend the complaint because they have destroyed their records.As a result they usually reject the initial complaint (even on a spurious basis like this one) in the hope you will go away.

Suggest you stick with it.

Check with the FOS on the red/amber question if you like:
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk

Andrew4444

dunstonh wrote: »

What about the statements in between 2003 and 2007. Where an of those showing a shortfall? Remember that the traffic light coding wasnt mandatory. If the mid rate showed a shortfall then they could use that. If it was green all the way through then they cant start the clock.

I had the usual yearly returns with no letter. No shortfall reported.

dunstonh

Andrew4444 wrote: »

I had the usual yearly returns with no letter. No shortfall reported.

Pru didnt use the red/amber/green every year IIRC. They just used the standard projection rates. If none of the mid rate projections ever showed off target then they cant start the time bar using the three year rule. So, if thats the case, they have to give you at least 6 months warning of your time bar to complain. That brings you back to the letter telling you when that expiry date was which is where the confusion appears to be in what you have received.