Conned by an Endowment Claim Company

John_Morris_4

We signed up with Brunel Franklin to claim for endowment mis-selling". One claim was successfully processed (and the 25% charge paid to BF).
A second endowment with a different insurance company resulted in very low compensation offer. Which meant that with the "price promise" being offered by the insurance company, we would have actually lost money, because the policy would have to have been forfeited as part of the offer. The offer was therefore refused.
Brunel Franklin now want me to pay their fees for the refused offer (circa £900), even though the claim didn't go through. They say that their contract (which we signed) is to obtain a compensation amount, irrespective of whether it's financially beneficial to the policy holder.
For those of you about to embark on such a venture, be very aware. There are companies out there, who are obviously sharks. BF made a successful claim in one instance but on the second I've been conned.
I'd be interested in anyone else's experiences, and what can I do (if anything) about the fees they are waiting for me to pay.

vinno65

Hi John,
I cant see how you are going to lose money. You've complained I presume because you were not made aware of the risks involved with endowments when it was sold to you. Thus if the miss-sales have been upheld you should be put back into the position you would have been had you taken out a repayment mortgage which by the fact that you have complained about an endowment I presume you would have. So the surrender value plus the redress minus what you owe the firm ( you could have complained yourself) should be pooled together to pay off a lump sum from your mortgage and convert the remainder to a repayment (which the guilty party shold also pay any fees for). that way you have (so long as you keep up the repayments) a risk free mortgage. You would then be in the position you believe you should be in which prompted you to complain in the first place. To say the firm has ripped you off is bit harsh considering you employed them to get you the correct compensation which it looks like they have.

regards Vinno

John_Morris_4

Hi Vinno
No they haven't come up with suitable compensation. Even BF said that the offer was "derisory"!
I would have received compensation circa £3200 from the insurance company, plus a forfeit fee. But if I keep the policy until maturity (2011) they will pay "price promise" bonuses which added to the final sum (and taking account of the continuing monthly payments) means that I will be better off than if I accepted the offer and had to pay BF for the compensation claim.
My comment is that if you sign up for a claim with a company, they don't necessarily have to get a good offer; and they then have you over a barrel in terms of accepting or not. If you decline the offer, you still have to pay 25% (+VAT) of the offer value to the claim company. So a double whammy - no compensation and a large fee to pay.

dreamylittledream

Is the endowment with Pearl by any chance?

If so you do know the 'Pearl Promise' is not worth the paper its written on...(personal opinion only here)

If the compensation offer is incorrect (which BF seem to be implying) you have the right to refer your claim to FOS.

However if it is correct then I suspect BF have the right to charge you a fee based on the work they have done - no win/no fee agreements do tend to work this way - after they have got you a result, and providing its correct they have a right to be paid for the work done on your behalf.

John_Morris_4

Yep - spot on dreamylittledream, it's Pearl. I thought the price promise was guaranteed. It implies it in their correspondence.

By the way, BF are now saying they will reduce the fee as a "good will gesture". Good for them, at least someone in their claims dept is showing common sense - unlike their financial dept.; who said pay up or we'll instigate legal proceedings! I'll post the amount when it's agreed. I have no problem paying for their services at a pro-rata rate even if the overall offer package wasn't that good. But to ask for 25% +VAT of money not received is pushing it. £900+ for a few telephone calls and some correspondence makes ?????

Incidentally - and here's a warning for others who are considering using a claim company - Pearl demand that the policy is forfeited if offer is accepted. In my opinion claim companies such as BF, should advise their customers of that, before pinning them down attractive offers of compensation.

vinno65

Hi John,
they have no right to insist you surrender the policy, but why would you want to keep it, after all you have complained that they sold it you in the first place!
regards Vinno

dreamylittledream

John_Morris wrote:

Yep - spot on dreamylittledream, it's Pearl. I thought the price promise was guaranteed. It implies it in their correspondence.

By the way, BF are now saying they will reduce the fee as a "good will gesture". Good for them, at least someone in their claims dept is showing common sense - unlike their financial dept.; who said pay up or we'll instigate legal proceedings! I'll post the amount when it's agreed. I have no problem paying for their services at a pro-rata rate even if the overall offer package wasn't that good. But to ask for 25% +VAT of money not received is pushing it. £900+ for a few telephone calls and some correspondence makes ?????

Incidentally - and here's a warning for others who are considering using a claim company - Pearl demand that the policy is forfeited if offer is accepted. In my opinion claim companies such as BF, should advise their customers of that, before pinning them down attractive offers of compensation.

Two issues here John

First of all the Pearl promise is only guaranteed if Pearl manage a growth rate of 6% - which they haven't been doing and miracles aside are unlikely to manage it. There will however be certain values currently attatched to it. That said just like the Standard Life and Norwich Union 'promises', this can be withdrawn at any time Peal see fit. It does not form part of your contract with them.

Secondly take Pearl to the Financial Ombudsman Service - they are seriously dodgy ground with their insistance on surrender. FSA DISP guidelines allow them to frame their offer of redress with the surrender of the policy - not to insist upon it as a condition of receiving compensation.

They have been losing cases on this point so whilst there are no guarantees with the FOS you are very likely to win your case.

Brunel Franklin also should allow you to take the case to the FOS given the circumstances - unless they have a water tight fee agreement which covers instances such as this I doubt they could prevent you from taking the case to to the FOS to prevent the conditional surrender. If they don't I couldnt see them winning a claim in court unless they specifically noted the possibility of surrender of the policy being a condition of the offer.

I'd try and speak to a manager at BF...

defender_of_the_weak

Notwithstanding the comments re separating the redress from the policy it does show how careful you need to be about these things.

I would suggest accessing the which table of endowment claim companiers but it is almost impossible to access and not up to date.

The only definitive comparison I have seen in the public domain was in the Guardian last year, but you should also check the terms and conditions before signing

didi10

i contacted bf after hearing an advertisement on the radio about unenforceable credit agreements. Ive had a barclaycard for about 8 years that i owed £3600 on, the min payments were £95 a month an thats all i could afford to pay. Bf said that i may have a case but i needed to pay £95 to get the ball rolling. Then 3 more payments of £95 after i had chosen 1 of there 3 nominated law firms. I read through there paperwork and chose a law firm to take on my case. I recieved the occasional letter from the firm saying that uca has been put on hold in the high court, and they needed to do some test cases. This was in january, I contacted the firm at the end of january to see what was happening and they said its still ongoing. A few days later i got a letter stating as it is still on hold some of our clients/cases have ceased paying there monthly c/card bills untill it goes to court. So i stopped paying 5 months ago and out of shear frustration. I was recently pursued by barclaycard then mercers debt recovery and now westcott debt recovery/tracers all of which i am now in hiding from I am now in a new address which westcott have somehow traced me too. I return every letter unopened, so now they have started to phone my neighbours to ask if i live by them, is this legal??

dunstonh

I recieved the occasional letter from the firm saying that uca has been put on hold in the high court, and they needed to do some test cases.

Those test cases occured in December. They all ruled in favour of the lenders.

A few days later i got a letter stating as it is still on hold some of our clients/cases have ceased paying there monthly c/card bills untill it goes to court.

Which is something you should never do.

so now they have started to phone my neighbours to ask if i live by them, is this legal??

Yes it is.