Report Endowment Misselling Compensation SUCCESSES

dunstonh

Not sure I understand that one dunstonh why does being given a longer period in which to complain constitute a worse option?

Under law the statute of limitations would be 15 years from purchase. The industry is pushing for the FSA to bring time bars in line with law (as part of the FSA's RDR proposals) but it doesnt look like it is going to happen.

If it did then it would remove far more people from the abilty to claim than is currently the case. So, asking that the same principles of law apply would actually see more consumers worse off.

IMO there should be no time bar.

I understand that sentiment and part of me agrees. However, the other part recognises that if you go on long enough chances are advice or the product sold will become obsolete at some point. If you are still relying on advice given 15-20 years ago and havent had it reviewed, chances are what you were told is no longer correct and the product you have is no longer as good as modern options.

mayb_2

There are many many people out there dunstonh who are not able to deal with such things on any level - if they have not been advised that they need to be advised the chances are it would not cross their mind.

The endowment we had on the mortgage stayed constant. When we changed mortgages we were told to top it up by the company who sold us the second mortgage and they provided us with that top up to cover the extra money we were borrowing with the new mortgage. That one failed miserably too. We had to give them details of our endowment policy and assumed that they accepted it as a suitable vehicle to repay our mortgage with them.

We were given advice three times in relation to the endowment and each time that advice was wrong. We had no way of checking out the advice given and relied on the adviser each time.

dunstonh

There are many many people out there dunstonh who are not able to deal with such things on any level - if they have not been advised that they need to be advised the chances are it would not cross their mind.

Then they should take person responsibility for it themselves. People manage to get their car serviced, go to the dentist, get their eyes checked, buy food every week. Buy televisions, DVDs etc. Having 90 minutes a year to review the finances isnt too much to ask. Indeed, for many firms you dont even need a revist as postal/email works fine.

We were given advice three times in relation to the endowment and each time that advice was wrong. We had no way of checking out the advice given and relied on the adviser each time.

You took advice from a sales rep who is not allowed to recommend cancellation of plans. You know my views on sales reps and that they shouldnt be able to use the adviser tag and it should be made clear the limitations. Problem is the EU wont allow that.

mayb_2

I can't agree with your take on that dunstonh. The second mortgage company asked us for the details of our endowment - if they did not know anything about them then the fault laid with them not me. The advised us to top it up and sold us an endowment to do that. Again we were taking advice from people we felt we should be able to trust. That again is down to them. The consumer should not be expected to understand the difference between a mortgage advisor who is a sales rep (we are talking building society here) and a mortgage advisor who is a mortgage advisor.

It is also something you are encouraged to go to the banks or building societies for and so people do - that does not make it their own fault if they don't get given the information that should be given and updated each year.

Lets hope we continue to see success stories on this page - at least some people are getting their rightful redress and that makes this whole forum worthwhile.

dunstonh

The second mortgage company asked us for the details of our endowment - if they did not know anything about them then the fault laid with them not me.

They need to know what you have but they are not allowed to tell you to cancel it. They would record the dates and amounts and thats all they should do. They should not offer opinion or advice on it unless they are an IFA.

he advised us to top it up and sold us an endowment to do that.

Which was the correct advice. Had they said cancel the other one and do a new one with us it would be a breach.

The consumer should not be expected to understand the difference between a mortgage advisor who is a sales rep (we are talking building society here) and a mortgage advisor who is a mortgage advisor.

They should do. However, the FSA has made it hard for people to know the difference and the salesforces, being sales minded, have phrases and texts to put people off IFAs. These include outright lies at time. The FSA has been pro banks for well over a decade. Nearly all rules changes over the years hurt IFAs and benefited the banks. There are signs of a U turn on this but nothing good enough yet.

It is also something you are encouraged to go to the banks or building societies for and so people do - that does not make it their own fault if they don't get given the information that should be given and updated each year.

The banks are just sales outlets. They encourage you to use them but no more than any other company that advertises products. That doesnt mean they are best.

mayb_2

I expect you understand that I am talking about the periods from the mid 70s early 90s here dunstonh and I am not sure you are really aware of just how little was available in the way of financial advice to the ordinary man in the street.

Banks were very hard to persuade to give a mortgage and you had to make an appointment with the manager to discuss it and building societies expected you to have savings with them before they would lend you money.

I don't recall advertising of banks as such and I was still being paid in cash as was my husband. We did most of our transactions in cash and that included poping into the building society to pay our mortgage. Things have moved on at such a speed in the communications and advertising world that it is not suprising that younger people do not appreciate the times we actually lived in. Certainly the personal IFA was the perogative of the rich and not something we even knew existed.

dalenblue

Endowment Provider: Legal & General
Original Compensation Offered: £5000
Final Compensation Offered £32,500

Reading the many stories posted here about how happy people are with the payouts of a measly few grand amazes me.

I took out a with profits endowment through an agent working at an Estate Agent in 1993 to cover an £76k mortgage over 25 years. The idea being it would pay off the mortgage plus a nice nest egg. Well we all know what happened to that promise!. Anyway I made a claim in 2005 on the basis that the policy did not mature until 3 years after my retirement age and therefore was an unsuitable product in the first place.

Now I am am not stupid and I was aware of this in the first place as I was in a good job with a final salary pension scheme and I knew that I would be able to pay the premiums after retirement. Plus the premiums included joint life insurance on me and my wife for the £76k which when you reach your fifties can alone cost over £100 per month.

Legal & General rejected my original claim ( a policy that many companies employ just to frighten people off), but when I took it to the Financial Ombudsmans Department Legal & General offered £5000 to be paid into my fund but I then had to increase my premiums to £190 per month to cover the projected shortfall. This was like throwing good money after bad, as there was no guarantees!!.

To cut a long story short, I knew someone with inside information of how these things work and this person composed a brilliant letter shooting down all their arguments, with the result that I got £32,500. I had to close the policy but as I had paid off a large chunk of the mortgage with a redundancy payment I find myself with a tiny mortgage which I can easily pay of over the next few years.
To cap it all off L&G also offered to keep the life insurance going with the premiums set at the age I was when the endowment was taken out.

Crazy_Saver

dalenblue wrote: »

Endowment Provider: Legal & General
Original Compensation Offered: £5000
Final Compensation Offered £32,500

Reading the many stories posted here about how happy people are with the payouts of a measly few grand amazes me.

I took out a with profits endowment through an agent working at an Estate Agent in 1993 to cover an £76k mortgage over 25 years. The idea being it would pay off the mortgage plus a nice nest egg. Well we all know what happened to that promise!. Anyway I made a claim in 2005 on the basis that the policy did not mature until 3 years after my retirement age and therefore was an unsuitable product in the first place.

Now I am am not stupid and I was aware of this in the first place as I was in a good job with a final salary pension scheme and I knew that I would be able to pay the premiums after retirement. Plus the premiums included joint life insurance on me and my wife for the £76k which when you reach your fifties can alone cost over £100 per month.

Legal & General rejected my original claim ( a policy that many companies employ just to frighten people off), but when I took it to the Financial Ombudsmans Department Legal & General offered £5000 to be paid into my fund but I then had to increase my premiums to £190 per month to cover the projected shortfall. This was like throwing good money after bad, as there was no guarantees!!.

To cut a long story short, I knew someone with inside information of how these things work and this person composed a brilliant letter shooting down all their arguments, with the result that I got £32,500. I had to close the policy but as I had paid off a large chunk of the mortgage with a redundancy payment I find myself with a tiny mortgage which I can easily pay of over the next few years.
To cap it all off L&G also offered to keep the life insurance going with the premiums set at the age I was when the endowment was taken out.

Am I correct in assuming that the £32,500 included the sum raised by surrendering the policy?

dalenblue

yes the surrender value was £18k. The £32,500 was intended to put me back where I would have been had I had a repayment mortgage from the outset

dunstonh

dalenblue wrote: »

yes the surrender value was £18k. The £32,500 was intended to put me back where I would have been had I had a repayment mortgage from the outset

That makes more sense and taken with your other post it appears that the RU89 calculation was done finally but not intially. I believe L&G had to go back on a lot of theirs.

You should edit your post to reflect the redress payment though as the redress offered was not £32,500