No compensation for me!

sandydog_2

Am I the only person who couldn't even claim for compensation? I feel as if I'm losing out on 1000's because I was warned about the pitfalls. Looking at my projection I was even given a forecast for a 5% projection. I took it out in 1994.

Another thing is I don't even have any records of who dealt with my endowment!

It doesn't make me feel any better that I knew what I was letting myself in for!

Good luck to everyone who's claiming - great to see successes on here.

dreamylittledream

Ring the provider of the policy and ask who was the original selling agent of the policy.

You send the complaint to them...

InMyDreams

sandydog wrote:

I feel as if I'm losing out on 1000's because I was warned about the pitfalls. Looking at my projection I was even given a forecast for a 5% projection. It doesn't make me feel any better that I knew what I was letting myself in for!

Err, but isn't that the point? You *knew* were taking a risk. Yes, it sucks when it doesn't pay off, and however convincing the salesman was, however confident he made you feel, you still knew it was a risk, which you chose to take.

If you had chosen to take the safe, but more expensive (at the time) route with a repayment arrangement, and endowments had soared, would you feel justified to seek compensation for that, because your risk hadn't gone the way you wanted?

I don't mean to be unsympathetic (I'm actually in the same boat), but if you were aware of the pitfalls and chose to take that risk anyway, how can you blame someone else?

As I understand it, the compensation is for those who were lead to believe that their money was safe and guaranteed to pay off their mortgage. (If I've got this wrong, then show me where to sign, and I'll jump on the bandwagon too!!!)

IMD

ManAtHome

Yes, it's supposed o be compensation for mis-selling, not under-performance, but I'm sure plenty of people were well aware and have still cashed in.

I went the repayment route - makes no difference now, but if I'd thought there would have been a "heads you win, tails you win" compo-culture brewing, I might have gone the cheaper (at the time) route...

dreamylittledream

InMyDreams wrote:

Err, but isn't that the point? You *knew* were taking a risk. Yes, it sucks when it doesn't pay off, and however convincing the salesman was, however confident he made you feel, you still knew it was a risk, which you chose to take.

If you had chosen to take the safe, but more expensive (at the time) route with a repayment arrangement, and endowments had soared, would you feel justified to seek compensation for that, because your risk hadn't gone the way you wanted?

I don't mean to be unsympathetic (I'm actually in the same boat), but if you were aware of the pitfalls and chose to take that risk anyway, how can you blame someone else?

As I understand it, the compensation is for those who were lead to believe that their money was safe and guaranteed to pay off their mortgage. (If I've got this wrong, then show me where to sign, and I'll jump on the bandwagon too!!!)

IMD

Ach - teach me not to read the OP's post properly

However it is not enough for an adviser to have made you aware that the endowment might not repay the mortgage (the so called 'key risk), the policy has to have been consistant with your attitude to risk.

Basically this is how much risk you are prepared to take - as the saying goes "some [endowments] are [riskier] then others". Or put it another way - if you bet on the toss of a coin you have a 50% chance of success. If you bet on the roll of a dice, you have only a 1 in 6 or 16% chance of success. You may win more on the dice roll but the risk is higher.

The same principle applies to investments (well somewhat more complex admitedly). A with profits policy was generally thought to be suitable for those with a 'low' attitude to risk. Unit linked policies were only suitable for those with higher tolerance to risk (and indeed some funds which unit linked policies were invested were riskier then others). Thus the adviser had to recommend a policy that was consistant with the clients overall attitude to risk. Unsurprisngly this might be lower for the repayment of a large debt then with their own free cash.

And now we enter the ethical dilemma of mis-selling. The firm has to demonstrate the policy was suitable through evidence - ie a fact find capturing your attitude to risk, quotes showing you were aware of the possibility of a shortfall etc. If they can not demonstrate this then your account of events has to be accepted.

Its worht noting also that 'risk' is not the only reason that a policy may be unsuitable. You may have had no need for the inbuilt life cover which was an additional cost (if you were single with no dependants for example), you may not have had a mortgage at that point, a fair exaplanation of the the pros and cons of the capital and interest method of mortgage repayment may not have been undertaken by the adviser. The policy may extend into your retirement without any discussion as to how you would afford the mortgage and policy payments with a much lower income.

So in conclusion, just because you were made aware that there was a possibility that the policy might not repay your mortgage, does not mean that the policy was not mis-sold.