Friends Provident misselling claim still with FOs

mayfly_2

I read Mail on Sunday article re FP and Vinno65.I've since looked at loads of info on this site. My claim is still with FOS who originally timebarred it but I hung in and asked FOS to consider it.My query is now this case has opened up a new area, will FOS be likely to take fresh look at current caseloads.
My complaint was endowment stretching into retirement,no knowledge of attitude to risk, Advisor changed mortgage from repayment to endowment payment. Also 1st "red letter" in 2000 said "wait and see", by 2nd "red letter" in 2002, had converted to repayment mortgage to avoid shortfall.
All this originally had no effect on FOS who said I complained out of time. Is it worth me contacting FOS to say am aware of new situation re FP?
Any advice gratefully received.

dreamylittledream

Vinno's court victoryhas no effect on the FOS currently as it was set in the County court without precedent.

Providing the risk letters meet the required standard FOS are currently agreeing with timebars.

If the FOS have refused your complaint then your only option is court action yourself at the moment...

vinno65

Even if it had been at a high court it would have no effect on the FOS as they do not have to follow the law as they have their own rules. What it does do however is show how unfair the FOS are being with regards endowments sold into retirement. The FOS view currently is that as you are aware of your age at the point of sale and thus knew the endowment being sold to you extended into retirement, this aspect of your complaint is time barred under the 6 year rule. What this does not take into account (which the judge in my case did) is the advice you recieved at the point of sale. Now i would suggest that a minimal amount of peple would be happy to have a mortgage running into their retirement. It's just plain common sense. Your income would typically be halved but you would still be paying your biggest monthly outgoing i.e your mortgage. What did in fact happen, as in my case, is that people were advised they could surrender early(at retirement) and still pay off their mortgage. The sales brochures at the time even made a seeling point of this. One I know of suggested you could redeem your mortgage after 22 years or continue up to term for the "big cash bonus". Another compared two brothers, the bright one took out an endowment an paid off his mortgage after 20 years, whilst old thicko was still paying his repayment 5 years later. The FOS are aware of these brochures and of the sales scripts used back in the late 80's and early 90's but cjhoose to ignore this evidence. This way the firms have saved themselves thousands if not millions of pounds bt paying people less redress than they are due.
Conspiracy theory anyone???
regards Vinno

dreamylittledream

Vinno -actually thats not true. The FOS are bound by case law/judicial precedent where this is set in a relevant UK court.

In endowment cases this has been shown with regard to notional gains on outgoings (where the endowment mortgage was cheaper then a repayment mortgage). Until the court decision was set, any gain was offset against the loss made when comparing the capiatal position.

A similar situation has occured with regard to windfall payments made to policies (such as Scottish Amicable being taken over by Pru). Again until the court decision this was deducted from redress offered.

The FOS are not bound by their own precedent - they are subject to UK law however where appropriate. They can be more generous if choose so but they can no be less...

vinno65

Then how do you explain their decisions on endowments sold into retirement that have been going on for the past 4 years and your right contrary to the cases posted on their website. These are not unintelligent people so why have they been getting it so wrong and being neither fair or reasonable?
regrads Vinno