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 8 weeks I think my said it was.

Gareth - you have changed this part. Initially you said Principality would get back to you within 5 days and now you say 8 weeks. Which is it?

8 weeks sounds like you have initiated a complaint with them as that is the normal timescale to answer complaints.

When I asked if you had spoken to Principality I meant to make an appointment to see a financial adviser to go over your original paperwork with them and clarify things with them.

Have you actually started a complaint with Principality?

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%

That sounds like the Policy Document to me.

On the front cover underneath Portfolio level Option does it also say "Your Policy"?

Have you absolutely no other documentation from either Principality or Norwich Union?

garethwilliams wrote: »

A agree with whats been said about T&C's - they are long winded, jargonated (if thats a word!) and hard to understand for joe bloggs so most peole don't read them - just listen to what the person who is selling them says about it and promises it'll do.

If your policy document is only 9 pages as opposed to mine which is 22 pages, perhaps they have simplified them.

dunstonh - We have not had a suitability report - just saying again as you seem to have missed that...... again !

No it appears you have missed it when he said;

dunstonh wrote: »

You have said you cannot find the suitability report.

Rollinghome

jem16 wrote: »

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

So you want people to be told there is a chance of having a complaint upheld when there is clearly not as far as the suitability of the product is concerned?

Nothing of the kind. As stated quite clearly enough for someone with your supposedly remarkable powers of comprehension: I'd prefer you to be less santimonious and more understanding. I'd prefer there were not unhelpful claims of "trying it on" with absolutely no evidence of that. Do you find that such a very difficult concept to understand without having it repeated?

And I'd add could we not have these forums used by you as if you were the Witchfinder General interrogating new users looking only for advice?

jem16

Rollinghome wrote: »

And I'd add could we not have these forums used by you as if you were the Witchfinder General interrogating new users looking only for advice?

To get "advice", you need to be armed with the facts. Despite repeated requests for the facts none was provided until late last night.

EdInvestor

This appears to be the product in question:
http://www.trustnet.com/Factsheets/Factsheet.aspx?fundCode=N8F44&univ=N

The guarantee covers your money back adjusted for inflation on or after the 5th anniversary .No guarantee before that.

If it is a normal investment bond, a percentage of the fund value (typically 5-10% p.a., details in the policy documents) can be withdrawn penalty and MVR free.If the investors needed to extract funds, they should have started by asking for that money - and been told they can extract it if they didn't realise..

Additional withdrawals would likely attract penalties and an MVR and it seems they were wrongly informed about how much that would amount to by the Aviva call centre staff.

A complaint about the original sale based on incorrect match of attitude to risk might succeed if the investors were not told about the penalties,the MVR or the fact the guarantee didn't kick in till year 5.But if the BS salesman can show he issued the correct documents, the complaint would likely fail.

An initial informal complaint to Aviva over the issues at the call centre is another possibility - they were misled as to the best way of using the product to meet their immediate cash needs. It is not really good enough for the company to field such useless staff.Escalate said complaint if they don't respond.

whiteflag_3

jem16 wrote: »

To get "advice", you need to be armed with the facts. Despite repeated requests for the facts none was provided until late last night.

jem

you are responsible for educating our children and you actually thanked dunstonh for his post no 61- we have little hope in scotland.

what facts emerged late last night that changed things? I know( and so do you) im far from perfect so I cant see what changed then ...be a honey and point it out please?

whiteflag_3

dunstonh wrote: »

Whiteflag enjoys nothing more than creating arguments and destroying threads. We know what to expect from him so his responses are not a surprise. What is your excuse?


Ironically, Whiteflag is the worst offender of those posting on this thread.

QUOTE]

Cheers mate , us IFAs need to stick together.

:beer:

jem16

whiteflag wrote: »

jem

you are responsible for educating our children and you actually thanked dunstonh for his post no 61- we have little hope in scotland.

Why do you always have to resort to insults to try to get your point across?

what facts emerged late last night that changed things? I know( and so do you) im far from perfect so I cant see what changed then ...be a honey and point it out please?

I'm not your honey but for the benefit of others;

1. The fund was named which confirmed it was indeed a guaranteed product as had been requested.

2. They knew about the possibility of an MVR as it was mentioned in the "gubbings" of the policy, as Gareth put it.

What would you advise them to do next?

whiteflag_3

jem16 wrote: »

Why do you always have to resort to insults to try to get your point across?

not an insult - a statement of fact.

I'm not your honey but for the benefit of others;

yes your correct - apologies bit to relaxed tonight

1. The fund was named which confirmed it was indeed a guaranteed product as had been requested.

The williams didnt request anything - they were sold it


2

. They knew about the possibility of an MVR as it was mentioned in the "gubbings" of the policy, as Gareth put it.

Where< I thought they were never issued with a suitability letter.

What would you advise them to do next

Continue with the complaint - they have nothing to lose.

Sorry for sticking up for the less financially savy. ( im mean ruth was even apologising in her first post)

Pobby

Ah the mvr thing again. I took out a with profits endowment in 1988 with Scottish Life, oh when that matures said the sales lady, it should be worth about £120,000 in 25 years time. Not bad for about £115 a month. Going forward to 2007 the value was a stunning £26,000. Advice was to cash in. I phoned them and was told it would pay out £28,000. Came here and rightly so no one could explain that in a month it had increased by £2,000, best suggestion was that some bonuses had been added.

Got the paper work through and again that figure was supported. Duly received a cheque for the £28,000. Four months later I had a letter saying that they had overpaid by £2,000 and would we send a cheque to them for £2,000.

What are these people on? I still get the odd letter asking for it back. Had to laugh at one stage, they threatened to put us into the debt recovery department. Wow, if I ran my business in such a shoddy way I hate to think of what would happen

jem16

whiteflag wrote: »

not an insult - a statement of fact.

You know nothing about my teaching abilities so it's not fact.

yes your correct - apologies bit to relaxed tonight

Apology accepted.

The williams didnt request anything - they were sold it

Semantics and you know it. They have mentioned time and time again that they thought they had a guaranteed product and they were happy with that.

they came back with the fact it was a guaranteed investment fund plan but linked somehow to the with profits fund. Phew - that was ok as that meant our money was safe

They have a guaranteed product.

2

Where< I thought they were never issued with a suitability letter.

Yes they said that.

However he also said that after looking at the Aviva policy it does mention the MVR.

The advisor didn't mention anything about this MVR fee. Yes looking into the 'gubbings' of the paperwork it does mention this fee

If this was something they did not understand or unhappy with it should have been mentioned at the point of sale.

Continue with the complaint - they have nothing to lose.

They may have as they be barking up the wrong tree as far as the complaint is concerned. They may get the answer that the building society has done no wrong and not pursue Aviva ( who seem to be guilty of bad servicing) for fear of getting the same result.

However the person who does have something to lose is the building society adviser who may have done everything correctly.

Sorry for sticking up for the less financially savy. ( im mean ruth was even apologising in her first post)

Then do your job properly and help them to go down the correct route.

1. Talk to the Principality adviser and see what paperwork is present. If their paperwork is in order and the Williams have simply forgotten what took place ( and that can be possible with the less financially savvy as you put it - in fact it can be possible with everyone) then a complaint against them would be a waste of time.

2. If the Principality paperwork is not in order then put in a complaint.

3. If the Principality paperwork is in order then put in a complaint against Aviva if wrong information has been given over the phone. As has been said phone calls are recorded so it should be easy to verify.