Report Endowment Misselling Compensation SUCCESSES

treliac

Prudential

£9,300

Prudential accepted, from the start of our complaint, that the product they sold us had not been suitable. However, they made the pathetic offer of only £1,200. We declined and took our complaint to the FOS. My first point is, therefore, don't believe all you might read on here about companies using standard methods of calculation that it is not worth challenging. We were pretty clear that this was a derisory offer and in no way reflected the value of our losses.

Notwithstanding this, it is extremely difficult as a layperson to know exactly what is a reasonable offer and, IMO, the FOS is not entirely sure in complex cases, which ours certainly was! But that's another story.

Of more relevance now we have reached this stage, is to be supportive to those still trying to claim what should be their rightful entitlement from dishonest and tricky financial institutions. The following article was an enlightening read for me; it gives an accurate description of what was going on back in the days when mis-sales were prevalent. It describes what we experienced and is something those responsible would much rather you didn't know.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/saving-and-banking/article.html?in_article_id=320146&in_page_id=7&in_a_source=Mail%20on%20Sunday

I can confirm, also, that Prudential still had all our paperwork, dating back to the original sale, so any decisions were not due to their inability to defend themselves for lack of documentation. In fact, they were able to produce all the evidence that appeared to benefit them but not papers that incriminated them. We discovered this, having asked the FOS for a full set of the paperwork the company had supplied. This highlighted an obvious gap, the relevance of which had previously escaped us as laypeople and which finally sealed the FOS's decision. So, another point to make is - ask for a copy of everything the firm has sent the FOS.

The ombudsman's verdict vindicated us and our honesty, which was clearly spelled out in their final decision. It has been a long and exhausting process. I've learnt a lot and got to know some lovely people through MSE. I'm glad our battle is over and we've been able to pay a useful chunk off our outstanding mortgage. We would still be better off had we taken a repayment mortgage back in the days when we knew so little and relied on 'financial advice.' However, we are happy with the FOS's assessment of our case and their verdict.

Many thanks to everyone for all the advice and support I have been given here and the very best of luck to those still fighting for justice.

treliac

Crazy_Saver

treliac wrote: »

In fact, they were able to produce all the evidence that appeared to benefit them but not papers that incriminated them. We discovered this, having asked the FOS for a full set of the paperwork the company had supplied. This highlighted an obvious gap, the relevance of which had previously escaped us as laypeople and which finally sealed the FOS's decision. So, another point to make is - ask for a copy of everything the firm has sent the FOS.

treliac

Well done treliac!

Isn't it amazing how much information the FOS holds back from us unless we ask for it, even though it is common practice for them to send copies of all communications from us to the firms we are complaining about!:mad:

treliac

Crazy_Saver wrote: »

Well done treliac!

Isn't it amazing how much information the FOS holds back from us unless we ask for it, even though it is common practice for them to send copies of all communications from us to the firms we are complaining about!:mad:

Thanks Crazy Saver, it's truly you I have to thank for that advice, because it was asking for all that information that really helped us to prove our case. And it was because of your advice that I asked the FOS for it. (Fortunately, we too had kept all the documentation!!)

So my heartfelt thanks. Don't you just wonder how many claims have failed through technicalities that, had people been in possession of all the information, they might have achieved better outcomes?

I'm so glad that we can share valuable information on this site and hope people take the time and trouble to read through as much information as possible.

Thanks again for all your help x :A

Crazy_Saver

treliac wrote: »

Thanks Crazy Saver, it's truly you I have to thank for that advice, because it was asking for all that information that really helped us to prove our case. And it was because of your advice that I asked the FOS for it. (Fortunately, we too had kept all the documentation!!)

So my heartfelt thanks. Don't you just wonder how many claims have failed through technicalities that, had people been in possession of all the information, they might have achieved better outcomes?

I'm so glad that we can share valuable information on this site and hope people take the time and trouble to read through as much information as possible.

Thanks again for all your help x :A

Just had a thought treliac, what's the betting that dunstonh comes back at me with a fantastic arguement as to why the FOS only sends copies of correspondence to the firm and not to the complainant!


Only joking dunstonh, I couldn't have come as far as I have so far without your advice (even though my IQ may not be up to sctatch;))

dunstonh

(even though my IQ may not be up to sctatch;))

I didnt say that. mayb was on about mortgages in that post. Not endowments. I very much doubt you thought that your mortgage payments couldnt go up and down.

Just had a thought treliac, what's the betting that dunstonh comes back at me with a fantastic arguement as to why the FOS only sends copies of correspondence to the firm and not to the complainant!

I have heard that happen before and it works both ways.

My first point is, therefore, don't believe all you might read on here about companies using standard methods of calculation that it is not worth challenging.

There is no standard method with pension mortgages. The standard applies to endowments.

treliac

There is no standard method with pension mortgages. The standard applies to endowments.

There are similarities between the two though. The pension policy has to be paid until the holder's retirement, so they end up paying interest on the mortgage loan for that whole period, hence a young person pays a colossal amount of interest over the lifetime of the mortgage. Now the redress should be calculated by comparing to a standard 25 year repayment mortgage and not the 30 - 40 years that the pension policy would run. Guess what the Pru tried to do?



Thank you too, very much dunstonh, for the time you devote to replying to everyone. You answered my very first, tentative enquiry about our pension mortgage. :cool:

Don't you think you could stretch to one teensy click of the thanks button to me on this occasion. Just this once?

mayb_2

I expect so teliac as I appear to be the one in dunstonh's bad book right now!! Must get that IQ looked at.

Well done treliac you have my heart felt congratulations, having been there and failed I can appreciate how much tenacity was needed to get such a result. Unfortunately I was not able to get the ombudsman I dealt with to take much notice of the paperwork and I only got copies when I had received their decision, which they wouldn't alter on appeal either. Perhaps there is breed of Ombudsman with a social conscience these days.

I am glad for you but agree that in the end it does not put us in the same position we would have been in and the worry goes on. I do agree that it is important for people like us to continue to support those who are still fighting for redress. We have all learnt something from each other and no doubt from the dunstonh's too. Perhaps when he grows older and even wiser he may feel able to be more generous about the motivations behind our battles.

However, hopefully now you can look forward to some relaxing times, not working on the next letter or battle front. I wish you all the best and I could not be more pleased if it was my win rather than yours.

dunstonh

I expect so teliac as I appear to be the one in dunstonh's bad book right now!! Must get that IQ looked at.

You are just too sensitive mayb Not in my bad book at all.

There are similarities between the two though. The pension policy has to be paid until the holder's retirement, so they end up paying interest on the mortgage loan for that whole period, hence a young person pays a colossal amount of interest over the lifetime of the mortgage. Now the redress should be calculated by comparing to a standard 25 year repayment mortgage and not the 30 - 40 years that the pension policy would run. Guess what the Pru tried to do

Absolutely similar but far more difficult to calculate. There is some logic, albeit with a few flaws, with endowments but pension calculations are far more difficult and I wouldnt want to get involved in one.

treliac

My deepest thanks to you mayb. (This is starting to sound like an acceptance speech ).

You have been my staunchest ally and inspired me throughout. Before I started my journey through the minefield of mis-selling, I read both of the threads through in their entirety (most of it more than once!). Your consistency and determination to get the message across and to support everyone who hesitantly came on to ask for advice, shone out to me.

When I felt despondent, you were always there with your encouragement and I thank you deeply for your commitment and for your generosity.

You're a star. :staradmin :A x

treliac

Aw, thanks for those thanks. Cheers, I'm raising my glass to you all. :beer: