Am I just Unlucky?

melboy

I started my complaint to my endowment provider (Scottish Equitable) in March 2005. I was told that my Independent Financial Advisor had gone out of business and that I should write to the FSCS. This I did. My reasons to complain about mis-selling included the fact that my endowment continues well past my retirement date which was known to the IFA when I purchased the endowment. However it was not pointed out to me and I was like so many others blinded by the promise of huge returns on maturity.
Today I received the decision of the FSCS which is that although my policy commenced on 5th October 1998 the proposal date was 18th July 1998 which means that because I took advice from my IFA before the 28th August 1998 the FSCS are unable to consider my claim. Unless I can produce evidence that the IFA acted to arrange my endowment after 28th August 1998 I seem to have no further course of action to pursue. Unless of course someone out there can help or suggest an alternative course of action.

dreamylittledream

Sorry that is the end of the road unless you have documentry evidence to prove otherwise.

The FSCS will decline a claim if they possibly can - they have a limited fund from which to award compensation.

On the bright side even if they had ruled in your favour, the compenstion would have been significantly lower then that specified in the FSA/FOS guidance as the FSCS are allowed to ignore many of these rules...

dunstonh

You of course mean 1988 and not 1998.

However it was not pointed out to me and I was like so many others blinded by the promise of huge returns on maturity.

So, when you arranged your mortgage, you didnt once question the fact it went past your retirement age?

I'm personally not keen on this age 65 thing been classed as a mis-sale for endowments. Had you arranged a repayment mortgage past 65, you wouldnt have any grounds for complaint. So, why should endowment mortgage be different.

Not a dig at you but a generalisation of the issues. I also have to admit that I am not displeased as one less pay out from the FSCS as I have to pay out to cover that. I hate that I have to pay for others despite the fact that I have a personal lifetime liability on the advice I give, even if I shut down or retire. Give all the advisers a personal liability and watch how quickly the bad ones leave.

dreamylittledream

dunstonh wrote:

You of course mean 1988 and not 1998.



So, when you arranged your mortgage, you didnt once question the fact it went past your retirement age?

I'm personally not keen on this age 65 thing been classed as a mis-sale for endowments. Had you arranged a repayment mortgage past 65, you wouldnt have any grounds for complaint. So, why should endowment mortgage be different.

Not a dig at you but a generalisation of the issues. I also have to admit that I am not displeased as one less pay out from the FSCS as I have to pay out to cover that. I hate that I have to pay for others despite the fact that I have a personal lifetime liability on the advice I give, even if I shut down or retire. Give all the advisers a personal liability and watch how quickly the bad ones leave.

Thats becuase mortgage advice was not regulated at the time but is now. A mortgage inappropriatley sold into retirement now would be a valid reason for complaint.

I quote DISP at you but suffice to say that mortgage terms into trtirement are not generally thought to be good advice for a majority of people who will suffer a serious income reduction in retirement.

Affordability and sustainability in retirement needs to be demonstrated - if this was not justified in the fact find its a justified area of complaint. Far too many advisers at the time regarded a 25 year term of an endowment (and indeed a mortgage) as standard with little consideration for the client's circumstances.

dunstonh

That's because mortgage advice was not regulated at the time but is now. A mortgage inappropriately sold into retirement now would be a valid reason for complaint.

I know that. However, it just seems a little unbalanced that the over 65 rule is being applied for that "era" on one of the mortgage types and not the other.

For example, someone went to lender for a mortgage that goes past retirement, they get interest only plus endowment or repayment mortgage plus life quotes to compare. If they then choose to go repayment, they cant complain about it going past 65. If they choose endowment, they can.

melboy

dunstonh
Yes I did mean 1988 and not 1998. I also think you are jumping to conclusions by assuming I am retiring at 65. When I took this endowment advice I was 30 years old with little experience of the mortgage/endowment market. My retirement date has been known to me since I was 18 however as I said before, I was blinded by the promise of big returns (made verbally) on my endowment and didn't realise that I would be paying into a rubbish product for 7 years after I retire.

dunstonh

My reasons to complain about misselling included the fact that my endowment continues well past my retirement date

I assumed state retirement age as that is generally the age that is considered that the endowment shouldn't go past. You could argue 63, which it the average retirement age for men. Although once you start trying to complain that its past your selected retirement age of say (guess) 53, then you would be expected to prove that your retirement funding is all in place for that age. On the law of averages, anything less than 60 would be looked at with you perhaps needing to provide proof. Whereas anything over 65 would automatically need the advising company to prove they verified affordability.

You will have to excuse me if I sounded a little grumpy. It was not aimed at you. In the last week I have just had to pay my FSA fees and I hate having to pay for other peoples misselling when I havent had to pay a penny out on my own advice.