NU endowment - direct sell. Claim for compensation?

dfarry

OK Ed will do cheers....

Obviously I don't have all the details just yet...

The sum insured is £513000
I'm paying £82 pm (includes critical illness element) - also in joint names/life
Maturity date is 26/05/2019

will start a new thread once I have all the details though and perhaps pm you... many thanks

dfarry

Here is the letter I got from NU dismissing my claims...

After getting this I gave up... as I felt I was unable to prove how influential the advisor had been in glossing-up the endowment option.... Nest eggs and all that stuff...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/daniel.farry/nu/NUpage1.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/daniel.farry/nu/NUpage2.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/daniel.farry/nu/NUpage3.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/daniel.farry/nu/NUpage4.jpg

I had a review letter in 2003 also that stated that growth between 1999 and 2003 had been less than 6% so on that basis my fund was predicted to shortfall by around £20000... however if performance improved to average over 6% during the life of the policy then the promise would stand, reducing the shortfall to around £2000...

The thing is if I remember rightly when I last checked this if performance was 8% I would be on target to acheive the sum insured.... so that 6% average isn't that generous really.

fbrj

EdInvestor - many thanks for your long post above (No 7) commenting on the points that I had raised, which has answered most of my queries/concerns. I do not have the paperwork (from memory a double-sided A4 sized glossy) - but it was definitely personalised to me with illustrated returns to coincide with the year of maturity with existing NU endowments that I held.

dunstonh

illustrations are not personal recommendations. Execution only and direct offer cases still get issued with illustrations.

EdInvestor

fbrj

This matter came up fairly recently in relation to the precipice bond scandal - most of these pernicious products were sold by advisers through mailshots.

Have a look at this thread which explains how the FOS/FSA will look at the situation: it boils down to whether the investor could have understood the sale to be an "advised" one - that is , personally suited to you, rather than just a mailshot advertising a generic product.

In early 1989, I was already a NU endowment policy holder and had 2 existing policies with them. However my comments here relate specifically to a 3rd policy taken out in Feb 1989. In early 1989 I received a "flyer" - ie a mailshot - directly from NU inviting me to take out another endowment policy. It was specifically made out to me...showing potential returns at my normal retirement date.

It seems to me that your case is worth pursuing in that you could reasonably have considered this was an advised sale, as the product they were suggesting appeared to be tailored to your personal circumstances and they already knew all about you as you had two similar products from them.

fbrj

EdInvestor wrote:

It seems to me that your case is worth pursuing in that you could reasonably have considered this was an advised sale, as the product they were suggesting appeared to be tailored to your personal circumstances and they already knew all about you as you had two similar products from them.

Thanks again for your reply. I think on balance I'll give it a shot! I'll report back in due course to let you know (and others) what response I get for a product sold as a direct but tailored invitation. I imagine it will depend on what warnings etc were highlighted and drawn to my attention in the literature.

EdInvestor

fbrj wrote:

Thanks again for your reply. I think on balance I'll give it a shot! I'll report back in due course to let you know (and others) what response I get for a product sold as a direct but tailored invitation. I imagine it will depend on what warnings etc were highlighted and drawn to my attention in the literature.

Good luck It seems pretty clear from what you say that you did actually think you were being advised, so it will be interesting to see what they say.

dunstonh

Good luck but I dont think you will get very far. The bond example came from IFAs marketing products with the clients details in. Now to me that is dodgy ground and they were right to be upheld. If I write to a client about a product, as the IFA, the client is almost certainly going to think I am recommending it to them.

However, a product provider marketing one of their products is a different scenario. Especially if that product provider hasnt given advice out in the past.

You get personalised junk mail every day but it doesnt mean you have to act upon it.

At the end of the day, its what was written and how it was written and what compliance messages were in there. Without that being available to us, we cant tell the likely response. NU will almost certainly have a copy of the generic bits of the mailshot at least. You may get lucky but I wouldnt bank on it.

fbrj

dunstonh wrote:

At the end of the day, its what was written and how it was written and what compliance messages were in there. Without that being available to us, we cant tell the likely response. NU will almost certainly have a copy of the generic bits of the mailshot at least. You may get lucky but I wouldnt bank on it.

A very fair summary...I entirely agree.