mvr, market value reduction

jem16

garethwilliams wrote: »

Hiya Jem - Yes my wife has spoken with the Principality and they said they are going to look into it and will be in contact with us within 5 days I think my said it was.

That's good. It will be interesting to hear what they say.

The document says on the front 'Portfolio Level Option' and at the foot of the front page it says Norwich Union

It sounds like it's from Norwich Union - now known as Aviva.

You should also have got a 22 page policy document. Did you get this?

It says on the policy schedule page:
Funds - W-P Inflation Protected Guarantee S4 100%

Dunstonh is correct and it would be wise to take note of what he is saying. He is not being argumentative - he's trying to help you.

It's a great fund. It has a guarantee on the 5th anniversary or later to pay whichever is higher of investment returns or RPI/CPI so it's inflation proofed if investment returns don't go well. You have exaclty what you wanted as long as you leave it for 5 years which you have admitted you knew.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=14239993&postcount=170

More about it here;

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1492513&highlight=norwich+union+inflation+protected+guarantee

dunstonh

I think somewhere you have brushed over whats been said - we're not happy about both the service we have received off them and also thier product. You are very quick to jump to their defense - are you linked or do you sell thier products - on commission by any chance for pushing their products is it ??

You seem to be mixing things up. Aviva did not sell you the product. They have nothing on file regarding the sale or recommendation other than an application form you signed. Aviva are only responsible for their servicing post sale. The adviser is not responsible for the service from Aviva. He/She will not know what Aviva have said.

Firstly the 'non advisor who advised us but really shouldn't - position unknown as not an advisor' gives us incorrect advice and also incorrect fee's and then we have totally in the dark as they don't know their elbow from their !!!!

As I said on this thread already, Aviva servicing is not good and mistakes like that are not uncommon.

if we indeed have a guaranteed plan or not as they are now saying we don't. If thats the case then its a miss sale on POS. Simple as - no nonsense. I've worked for HBOS and Blackhorse and if that happened their it would be a breach of FSA guidlines - same as if its sold face to face with an IFA.

Wrong. The product you have does have the guarantees. You have confirmed that. The fact that Aviva have given out incorrect information doesnt make the product wrong or advice wrong. It only makes the service from Aviva wrong.

The document says on the front 'Portfolio Level Option' and at the foot of the front page it says Norwich Union

It says on the policy schedule page:
Funds - W-P Inflation Protected Guarantee S4 100%

So, it is the product that you thought you had. How is that wrong?

Spot the word "GUARANTEE". That's a bit of a give-away. I would have thought someone that had worked for HBOS and Black Horse would know what Guaranteed meant.

Are we gonna argue some more or can we turn this into a polite discussion ?

Depends. The only one being argumentative is you. Yes I took issue at how quick you were to complain and I still stick with that opinion. Had you checked the documents earlier as requested you would have seen where the problem is. You can now see that you have the guarantees you wanted and that the issues were with Aviva.

You have said you cannot find the suitability report. The reason that was being asked to look at is because it contains the reasons why you take something out and the key risk warnings. Also, if you are not happy with the advice and there are errors in the suitability report, then you can actually use that against the adviser. e.g. if the explanation of your chosen risk profile says you wanted guarantees but the product doesnt have them then you can use their own words against them. It is the key document in any advice complaint. This document wasnt being asked to be checked for the fun of it. Knowing what is said is very important. If you couldnt find it then all your wife had to do was say it could not be found.

EdInvestor

Hmm. Another unhappy customer who seems to have been convinced that the guarantee was in operation for the whole of the life of the bond:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=23842839&postcount=13

jem16

EdInvestor wrote: »

Hmm. Another unhappy customer who seems to have been convinced that the guarantee was in operation for the whole of the life of the bond:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=23842839&postcount=13

Why do people not take responsibility for reading documents and making sure they understand them?

Or is it that they just want someone else to blame?

EdInvestor

I'm sure we would all agree :rolleyes: that insurance company small print documents are models of clarity and transparency which communicate their every detail to the customer with immediacy and simplicity.

This makes it hard to understand why pensions create such widespread confusion and ignorance.

Thrugelmir

jem16 wrote: »

Why do people not take responsibility for reading documents and making sure they understand them?

Or is it that they just want someone else to blame?

At school there needs to be re-education as to personal responsibility in life.

Rollinghome

jem16 wrote: »

Why do people not take responsibility for reading documents and making sure they understand them?

Or is it that they just want someone else to blame?

Could it just be because sometimes the documents and products are difficult to understand? (As with the person here with a similar product http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=23842839#post23842839 )

You say you were given two documents, one of 9 pages, the other of 22 pages, which presumably you understood every single word of. Good for you.

Many people might be more fallible than you and find that a lot to absorb and, possibly unwisely, rely on what they believe they were told. Certainly no one should be accused of "trying it on" with the implication of dishonesty without any evidence of that.

I think some people here need to be just a little less sanctimonious and perhaps even a tiny bit more sympathetic.

Ian_W

Hmmm, as another innocent bystander I've got to agree with Thrugelmir that the "Not being savvy with these types of documents" then having worked for 2 large financial institutions and as a result knowing what would be a mis-sale are somewhat contrasting - to say the least.

I have never worked in or had any connection with financial services, other than as a customer. However, well before you took out your bond I could have told you (as a mere punter):
1. When you receive financial advice recommendations to buy a particular investment type product it's usual to receive the recommendation in writing with reasons and your attitude to risk. You obviously didn't, otherwise you'd have queried why you hadn't received it?
2. When a provider sends you documentation about a product you've bought, rather than throw it in a drawer for a rainy day, it pays to read it during the cooling-off period to make sure it's what you want. If it contains a guarantee it's even more important to understand what is and isn't guaranteed, especially if 1 (above) hasn't been forthcoming. Clearly your time in financial services lulled you into a false sense of security and trust of your former employers.
3. WP investments carry the risk of MVRs being applied when markets are or have recently had a rough time, as was pretty much the case for most WP endowments from 2000-05. Really surprised you weren't aware of that.

Whilst I sympathise with the fact that your circumstances have changed and it is going to cost you a lot of money to withdraw some of your investment I really can't see any difference (other than scale of penalty) between this - and, say, opening a fixed rate savings account which penalises early withdrawals.

Ed has her ongoing thing about Bonds, which I think she equates to "spawn of the devil" and they're not something I'm attracted to - it really seems to me that as someone who should have known better, you didn't read the T&Cs. Or you did ....

Rollinghome wrote:

I think some people here need to be just a little less sanctimonious and perhaps even a tiny bit more sympathetic.

Personally, just telling it as I see it - but I will offer to make the OP a nice cup of e-tea if that's better.

whiteflag_3

dunstonh wrote: »

Depends. The only one being argumentative is you. Yes I took issue at how quick you were to complain and I still stick with that opinion. Had you checked the documents earlier as requested you would have seen where the problem is. You can now see that you have the guarantees you wanted and that the issues were with Aviva

yes gareth, how dare you challenge the mighty Dunstonh - now be a good boy and wait and see if hes going to be nice to you.

You have said you cannot find the suitability report

.

Hello!!!!!! listen DH they didnt get it - get in the real world it was never issued

whiteflag_3

Thrugelmir wrote: »

At school there needs to be re-education as to personal responsibility in life.

or perhaps a simplification of financial products and the sales literature. You are obvously very lucky that you know it all when it comes to financial products but dont knock those that are not so fortunate.