mvr, market value reduction

whiteflag_3

The OP has gone straight for the jugular. No effort has been made to find out if the advice was wrong or not.

So you were being hostile , thought as much.

They are still human. If they have done their job right then you should feel sorry for them

there is no evidence to suggest they did. Ruths got no idea what they have- if one of my clients left without knowing what they had then I would have to say I hadnt done my job properly.

The fact they dont have the product range available that an IFA would or the lower charged products doesnt matter in this case. They now have the stress of having to deal with a complaint and there may not be any grounds for it

Whereas Dunstonh, as you well know the reality is they will have spent their bonus and now be selling to another "victim" while their compliance dept deals with the complaint- stress free

Certainly doesnt appear to any grounds based on the content of this thread. The OP knew it was 5 years. The fund has a guarantee point is on the 5th anniversary. So, clearly the objective and the product match. The fact they now want some out after 2 years is not the fault of the rep.

but thats not what Ruth has said, the complaint is not about the early encashment charges

we wanted and that we would pay a percentage charge which worked out at £376. that was fine as we need the money now so we sent off

The complaint is about the application of an MVR which they clearly had no idea about as they did not know they had a with-profit bond.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with valid complaints but try-it-ons should not be encouraged

Isnt it a bit out of order calling someone a try-it-on Dunstonh when you arent armed with all the facts.

dunstonh

So you were being hostile , thought as much.

Not hostile. The OP asked questions, responses were given but she ignored most of them and posted that she went to complaint. I think that is wrong.

there is no evidence to suggest they did. Ruths got no idea what they have

There is no evidence to suggest they didnt. The OP mentioned that she knew it was 5 years. The aviva with profits fund had a guarantee on the 5th anniversary. So, there is clearly more evidence to suggest the product was done correctly and that the OP did recall the basics.

if one of my clients left without knowing what they had then I would have to say I hadnt done my job properly.

It was done two years ago. You know as well as me that people forget things. Especially those that are not particularly interested in the subject. I had someone phone me up earlier in the year to ask a question about something. I told him the answer and reminded him what we had said and that it was also in the report I wrote and he responded that he did then remember that being said. People dont remember everything that is said that is why the suitability report is issued.

Whereas Dunstonh, as you well know the reality is they will have spent their bonus and now be selling to another "victim" while their compliance dept deals with the complaint- stress free

I wont argue the first point as you are right. It is a sales process and one that is almost factory line in that its sell the product and find the next one to sell to. However, they will still have to respond to the complaint and it will go on their record and if they apply for advice jobs in future, the complaints record will be disclosed, even if not upheld.

but thats not what Ruth has said, the complaint is not about the early encashment charges

The MVR is only being levied as she wants money earlier than the 5 year MVR free point.

The complaint is about the application of an MVR which they clearly had no idea about as they did not know they had a with-profit bond.

So? She forgot what she had. Not uncommon. This is why the suitability report is key.

Isnt it a bit out of order calling someone a try-it-on Dunstonh when you arent armed with all the facts.

Its a bit out of order going straight to complaint without even checking your details. Especially when the responses were saying where to look and check.

As I said, if the warnings were not there then go to complaint. However, jumping in to complaint like she has done is in my opinion wrong. I am not going to change that view. I accept you may feel different but there you go.

whiteflag_3

Dunstonh, your new found fondness of direct saleforces is refreshing and your willingness to defend them commendable, however it maybe prudent not to judge people so quickly without knowing all the facts. For example, you keep refering to the suitabilty letter, however we dont even know whether one exists let alone the contents.

Like I said in my earlier post I've come across plenty of people with NU bonds sold through banks and Ive yet to see a satisfactory one. On the evidence so far I see no reason to suspect Ruth's case is any different so I will stick to my original advice to her re complaining.

dunstonh

Dunstonh, your new found fondness of direct saleforces is refreshing and your willingness to defend them commendable

I am not fond of them as you well know. I dont think you should use them. However, the OP did choose to use them and nothing said now is going to change that. The sales rep may not have done anything wrong and still deserves some common courtesy though.

it maybe prudent not to judge people so quickly without knowing all the facts. For example, you keep refering to the suitabilty letter, however we dont even know whether one exists let alone the contents.

Which is why I said in post 3 that the suitability report should be looked at to see what it says. The question was asked again in post 6 had she checked it.

You say its not prudent to judge people so quickly without knowing the facts but that is exactly what the OP is doing by jumping to complaint so quickly. It wouldnt have taken 10 minutes to look at the suitability report to see what it says. If its not there then complain.

Like I said in my earlier post I've come across plenty of people with NU bonds sold through banks and Ive yet to see a satisfactory one.

Me too. Far too often its a bond without an ISA or a Bond when unit trust would have been better. Even my Aviva rep has admitted that they have problems with some of the building societies doing bonds when they shouldn't. However, there is nothing in the thread posted by Ruth to suggest any mis-sale. At least not on the grounds she has said.

Ruth is complaining that she thought she had a 5 year product with guarantees and that it doesnt have a guarantee like she thought. The product does have a guarantee and does kick in at year 5.

whiteflag_3

dunstonh wrote: »

Ruth is complaining that she thought she had a 5 year product with guarantees and that it doesnt have a guarantee like she thought. The product does have a guarantee and does kick in at year 5.

Thats not how I see it, its because she has a with-profit bond with mvrs that she a) didnt think she was sold and b) were not explained.

Perhaps other readers might like to comment on what they think the complaint is really about.

dunstonh

Thats not how I see it, its because she has a with-profit bond with mvrs that she a) didnt think she was sold and b) were not explained.

She said over the two posts that she had a 5 year investment with a guarantee. The product sold does have a guarantee on the 5th anniversary.

Most 5 year investments with guarantees will lose the guarantee if you take money out before the time is up. Whether you call it an MVR or the underlying value of the assets on a structured product or whatever variety of penalty/charge/value you wish to use, the name doesnt matter. Is someone who isnt in financial services likely to remember what its called two years later?

debbie42

whiteflag wrote: »

Perhaps other readers might like to comment on what they think the complaint is really about.

OK, as another reader, I think what dunstonh has written is spot on. If I wanted to make a complaint about a product I'd at least check the original paperwork first.

whiteflag_3

debbie42 wrote: »

OK, as another reader, I think what dunstonh has written is spot on. If I wanted to make a complaint about a product I'd at least check the original paperwork first.

Yes but I agree with Dunstonh on that as well . In this case neither I nor Dh actually know what paperwork has been given to Ruth.

My question to other readers was what exactly was Ruth's complaint about not the timing of the complaint.

whiteflag_3

dunstonh wrote: »

Is someone who isnt in financial services likely to remember what its called two years later?

Especially if they are not told about it in the first place;)

parcival

I have a NU with profits sold by a Financial Advisor. The documentation from him is very clear about early encashment penalties. It also mentions MVR's BUT in a very superficial way. Almost like it's nothing to worry about, you may find an MVR in force but if you wait a while it will disapear. There was nothing at all that even hinted at the possible severity of MVR's or how long they could be in force for.

Remember this was an advisor!!!!!

I used to work in a bank and I know how cavalier the sales force can be.

OP - good on you for complaining - hope you win.