Mis sold endowment

hipaul500

I have recently complained about the mis selling of my endowment morgage. All I seem to get is a load of questionaires and paperwork to fill in, this is very time consuming. It would just seem that the companies are just trying to put people off.

The bottom line is, would anyone take out a mortgage if they thought that they could not pay for their house? I think not. Most people where told that they would pay their mortgage and get a lump sum. I used a broker who knew the score.

dunstonh

The bottom line is, would anyone take out a mortgage if they thought that they could not pay for their house? I think not.

Of course they would and do.

Most people where told that they would pay their mortgage and get a lump sum. I used a broker who knew the score.

I dont think that is strictly true. Many were told it would pay off more. Most were probably told that it could pay out a lot more and historically they had. In other words a positive spin put towards the potential payout at the end and. However, you shouldnt rule out the number of consumers that pro-actively wanted endowments because the consumers association said they were good, Money Mail said they were good and because relatives had received 10s of thousands more than they needed to clear the mortgage.

One word can change the whole meaning. "Could" and "Would". It would pay out a surplus is a mis-sale. It could pay our a surplus is not a mis-sale.

All I seem to get is a load of questionaires and paperwork to fill in, this is very time consuming. It would just seem that the companies are just trying to put people off.

How do they know that you arent trying it on. Many do. They are just seeing whether you are telling lies or not in your claim.

hipaul500

They have all my paperwork, and if they don't How would they know?

A lot of questions that are being asked are in relation to my finacial position now! What's that got to do with anything ? I either was or was not mis sold!

vinno65

dunstonh wrote:

However, you shouldnt rule out the number of consumers that pro-actively wanted endowments because the consumers association said they were good, Money Mail said they were good and because relatives had received 10s of thousands more than they needed to clear the mortgage.

One word can change the whole meaning. "Could" and "Would". It would pay out a surplus is a mis-sale. It could pay our a surplus is not a mis-sale.

Hi Dunstonh you know and I know that someone demanding an endowment as you suggest because their relatives had one and Money Mail said they were ace, would and should, if the IFA had any sense, have been treated as execution only. Who's clouding history here? I believe it's probably nearer the truth that IFA's were using spin such as "haven't all your relatives got one?" and "haven't you read Money Mail? even they think their ace"
Also what you have to remember is that most endowments were sold by tied agents in building societies who we know were working to sales scripts and had targets to meet. These people were promising that endowments would definately pay off your mortgage, the only unquatifiable was the amont extra (tax free) you would recieve.

HiPaul 500,
just answer the questions mate, any that you cant' just say you don't know the answer, any that you don't want to or if you feel are irrelevant (many are) again just say you don't know the answer.
regards both Vinno

vinno65

Hi Dunstonh,
no comment on last post?
regards Vinno

Garry_Anderson

hipaul500 wrote:

I have recently complained about the mis selling of my endowment morgage. All I seem to get is a load of questionaires and paperwork to fill in, this is very time consuming. It would just seem that the companies are just trying to put people off.

The bottom line is, would anyone take out a mortgage if they thought that they could not pay for their house? I think not. Most people where told that they would pay their mortgage and get a lump sum. I used a broker who knew the score.

Also the paperwork is so they can try find any excuse to not to pay for their wrong-doing - what they call 'mis-selling' which in actual fact is fraud.

They sold a product that was 'unfit for purpose' - and was proven to be unfit - even the Financial Ombudsman admitted that.

I am not "risk averse" (the pathetic excuse used to disqualify claimants) - and have gambled thousands of my spare cash on the stock market.

However - THE BOTTOM LINE IS - only a fool would gamble the money to be used to repay a massive house loan - THAT THEY OWED SOMEBODY.

Contrary to the pitiful propaganda that an endowment MIGHT have repaid the loan - the situation could have been a whole lot worse.

WoolwichSucks.co.uk - skilful.com

dunstonh

Hi Dunstonh you know and I know that someone demanding an endowment as you suggest because their relatives had one and Money Mail said they were ace, would and should, if the IFA had any sense, have been treated as execution only. Who's clouding history here? I believe it's probably nearer the truth that IFA's were using spin such as "haven't all your relatives got one?" and "haven't you read Money Mail? even they think their ace"
Also what you have to remember is that most endowments were sold by tied agents in building societies who we know were working to sales scripts and had targets to meet. These people were promising that endowments would definately pay off your mortgage, the only unquatifiable was the amont extra (tax free) you would recieve.

You have your opinion, I have mine. However, lets look at the stats from the FOS:

1 - only 5% of firms receive more than 2 complaints a year
2 - 26 firms generate 59.1% of complaints
3 - 85% of firms have no complaint cases at all.

Now to me, that shows that 26 companies had very poor compliance and advice/sales processes. Indeed, these 26 companies ought to be named and shamed. However, the vast majority of firms out there (I dont know how many thousands it stands at now) have no issues to be concerned about. To support your comment about tied agents selling the bulk, that is probably reflected in the 26 companies almost certainly all being tied agents.

These forums tend to give an impression that financial services is all corrupt but the complaints figures do not reflect that. Of course people only tend to post when they need something or when they are not happy about something. You dont see the positives very often. To me, the complaints figures suggest that you should avoid tied agents and stick with independents if you want best advice

Also with your comments about them being recorded as execution only, the problem there is that execution only is a monitored KPI and at the time, you were not expected to have any more than 1% of your business on execution only basis. Any excess in that amount could result in an investigation. So, advisers tended to put execution only cases through on advice basis even though it wasnt. Most tied firms dont allow execution only at all and I know of one IFA that bans it's employees from doing execution only.

dreamylittledream

dunstonh wrote:

You have your opinion, I have mine. However, lets look at the stats from the FOS:

1 - only 5% of firms receive more than 2 complaints a year
2 - 26 firms generate 59.1% of complaints
3 - 85% of firms have no complaint cases at all.

Now to me, that shows that 26 companies had very poor compliance and advice/sales processes. Indeed, these 26 companies ought to be named and shamed. However, the vast majority of firms out there (I dont know how many thousands it stands at now) have no issues to be concerned about. To support your comment about tied agents selling the bulk, that is probably reflected in the 26 companies almost certainly all being tied agents.

These forums tend to give an impression that financial services is all corrupt but the complaints figures do not reflect that. Of course people only tend to post when they need something or when they are not happy about something. You dont see the positives very often. To me, the complaints figures suggest that you should avoid tied agents and stick with independents if you want best advice

Also with your comments about them being recorded as execution only, the problem there is that execution only is a monitored KPI and at the time, you were not expected to have any more than 1% of your business on execution only basis. Any excess in that amount could result in an investigation. So, advisers tended to put execution only cases through on advice basis even though it wasnt. Most tied firms dont allow execution only at all and I know of one IFA that bans it's employees from doing execution only.

So the question is of course having completed a fact find and performed an advised sale, the IFA should be able to demonstrate the product was suitable for the client.

If they are unable to do that then there is a valid reason for the complaint - the adviser did not do their job properly....

dunstonh

So the question is of course having completed a fact find and performed an advised sale, the IFA should be able to demonstrate the product was suitable for the client.

Which is how some have been caught out.

However, I prefer the focus was on two other things in my response. 1 - That 26 companies only represent over 59% of all complaints. 2 - That 85% of firms have no complaints. If I was in charge of the FSA, I would be making life very difficult for those 26 companies by placing a lot more of the cost of complaints on them rather than the other 85% that are clean.

vinno65

dunstonh wrote:

Also with your comments about them being recorded as execution only, the problem there is that execution only is a monitored KPI and at the time, you were not expected to have any more than 1% of your business on execution only basis. Any excess in that amount could result in an investigation. So, advisers tended to put execution only cases through on advice basis even though it wasnt. Most tied firms dont allow execution only at all and I know of one IFA that bans it's employees from doing execution only.

Hi Dunstonh
Again sounds like more excuses. Do IFA's get commision on execution only sales?If they do is it as much as an advised sales?. Your comments above seem to talk of more sharp practice in the industry.Why worry about an investigation if you are doing nothing wrong? So why put sales through as advised when they were not? Commision?
Most tied firms don't allow execution only you say, then I presume they turn these away or are these converted to advised sales?

I fully agree with you that a minority of firms have caused the problems and IFA's have been caught up in this mess, but as this minority of firms sold the majority of endowments it is not hard to see why people have lost faith in the Financial Services industry. So much so that we've had an all party committee of MP's looking at how to restore confidence in the industry!
regards Vinno