Report Endowment Misselling Compensation SUCCESSES

markrobinson_2

Hello Friends

I am new here

rabialiones

hiya, just need some advice.
took out a mortgage, but then paid it off, however endowment is still running.
would i still be able to claim for mis-selling for the shortfall.
otherwise
should i just cash it in at its present value., if i do will i still be able to put a claim in?
about 5 years left on it, but to be honest , the projection doesn't seem to be fantastic, and i think the value of it may be the same in 5 years time.
i.e. 10,000 now would probably be the same as 14-16,000 in 5 years time,
although it is linked with life ins. as well.

any advice appreciated
thanks

denhoren

Hi,

New to the forum and after some advice please.

In Aug 1993 the wife took an endowment out for 30k to help pay off the mortgage when it matured.
In 1998 she was advised of a shortfall and subsequently added another policy with the same company to top it up.

In 2001 i got promoted and changed the mortgage over to repayment ( 29k left) and we decided to keep the endowments going as a kind of savings fund , that would hopefully pay out a decent sum upon maturity.

When the high risk of short fall letters came we contacted Abbey Life to say that we were not happy with the way the policy was sold to us ( broker who did home visits who has since left the company).

They advised that because switched from endowment mortgage to repayment that we are not eliglbe for any kind of compensation and neither will they investigate the policy.

As of today the projected short fall on the 30k is about 11k , thats on the assumption that it stays at 4.7% .

6% = 10k short fall , 8% = 7k so no matter what i think we are going to come up short.

I am quite mad that even though we have a small amount of mortgage left , with only 8 years left on it , if it wasnt for the fact that we had the forsight to swap to repayment , then we would be in the poo!

Is there anything that i can do.. i know we should have probably acted sooner, but the shortfall amount seems to be increasing yearly and i would have expected to atleast get back more than what we have paid in.. which seems unlikely!

Any suggestions greatly appreicated, and applogies for any spelling mistakes.

Thank You

dunstonh

denhoren wrote: »

Hi,

New to the forum and after some advice please.

In Aug 1993 the wife took an endowment out for 30k to help pay off the mortgage when it matured.
In 1998 she was advised of a shortfall and subsequently added another policy with the same company to top it up.

In 2001 i got promoted and changed the mortgage over to repayment ( 29k left) and we decided to keep the endowments going as a kind of savings fund , that would hopefully pay out a decent sum upon maturity.

When the high risk of short fall letters came we contacted Abbey Life to say that we were not happy with the way the policy was sold to us ( broker who did home visits who has since left the company).

They advised that because switched from endowment mortgage to repayment that we are not eliglbe for any kind of compensation and neither will they investigate the policy.

As of today the projected short fall on the 30k is about 11k , thats on the assumption that it stays at 4.7% .

6% = 10k short fall , 8% = 7k so no matter what i think we are going to come up short.

I am quite mad that even though we have a small amount of mortgage left , with only 8 years left on it , if it wasnt for the fact that we had the forsight to swap to repayment , then we would be in the poo!

Is there anything that i can do.. i know we should have probably acted sooner, but the shortfall amount seems to be increasing yearly and i would have expected to atleast get back more than what we have paid in.. which seems unlikely!

Any suggestions greatly appreicated, and applogies for any spelling mistakes.

Thank You

answered on your duplicate post on your own thread. Best to keep answers to that thread and not this one as your post is not related to the subject of this thread and no point having multiple conversations going on at once.

For others wanting to reply to this specific post, please use the following thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2589181

willow70_2

hi

just a bit of advice please my mother and father in law took out a endowment policy for when her morgtage ended for 40.000 to pay the balancnce and have a lump sum at the end. however my father in law died after a accident 6 years ago. to cut a long story short we have just come a cross paper work that my father in law was claiming against the mis selling of the endowment before he died. is it to late for my mother in law to take of were it has been left?

dunstonh

willow70 wrote: »

hi

just a bit of advice please my mother and father in law took out a endowment policy for when her morgtage ended for 40.000 to pay the balancnce and have a lump sum at the end. however my father in law died after a accident 6 years ago. to cut a long story short we have just come a cross paper work that my father in law was claiming against the mis selling of the endowment before he died. is it to late for my mother in law to take of were it has been left?

As your father in law died, the endowment did it's job and there is nothing to complain about.

willow70_2

thanks for you reply but all she got was the morgtage paid for no lump sum as was originally sold with the policy.

dunstonh

willow70 wrote: »

thanks for you reply but all she got was the morgtage paid for no lump sum as was originally sold with the policy.

Correct. Exactly the same as it would have been had it been a repayment mortgage with life assurance. So, not worse off/no better off. The exact result you would expect.

A surplus lump sum is not paid on death unless the value happens to be more than the sum assured (i.e. not very often).

So, there is nothing to complain about. Indeed, with endowment mortgages typically being cheaper than repayment mortgages, your MIL is financially better off than had they been on a repayment mortgage. So, complaining that is the option that they should have been on would be pointless as its worked out for the best (financially that is - obviously death wasnt).

gwapenut

I put in a claim against Friends Provident a few years ago but they rejected it on the basis of it being time barred. They said that I had 6 months to disagree but I took no further action as I thought I could get nowhere.

Reading the comments above, reminds me of something that surprised me at the time. I received no notification that I only had 6 months left to claim, prior to being time barred.

Their original reply indicated the time bar was in 2003, which was before the requirement to give 6 months notice of time barring.

Reading up on the subject, I see now that their letter of rejection incorrectly stated the time bar as being 3 years after a "high risk" letter sent in 2000. However, one of the options in that letter was to "wait and see", and so I do not consider it sufficient to set the clock ticking.

That leaves the first valid "high risk" letter as having been sent in 2002, meaning a time bar limit of 2005, and of course I received no warning of expiration of this.

Furthermore, my complaint was in Autumn 2006, some 6 months after Vinno's "court breakthrough" about the 2000 letter not being sufficient, and so FP knew they were wrong to use it as a means of timebarring me. Not having received a 6 month warning, I had assumed that I was still within time to claim but let myself be fobbed off by their rejection letter. I had not realised that the year 2000 letter was invalid.

So my question is whether it is too late to re-complain, a few years after they rejected my previous complaint, on the basis that they had not warned me about the time barring limit and were thus wrong to reject my claim?

magpiecottage

The rules relating to timebarring are generally that you must make your complaint within 6 years of the events giving rise to the complaint (the advice) or, if later, within three years of when you ought reasonably to have become aware that you had cause for complaint.

That applies to anything.

Prior to May 2004, that rule applied to endowments and it was accepted that a "red" letter telling you there was a high risk of a shortfall (and not merely an "amber" letter telling you there might be a shortfall) was enough to get the three years started. There was a concession with mortgage endowments that a second letter had to be sent within the three years but that did not have to be "red" - it could even be "green" and show a shortfall if only the lowest of the three projected rates of return was achieved.

In May 2004 the rules changed. From then, a firm could only timebar if it was more than three years since the first "red" letter AND a letter had also been sent warning the policyholder that a timebar would be imposed if they did not complain by a certain date. That rules required the letter to give the policyholder at least six months from when it was sent until the deadline expired.

The new rules do not, though, "untimebar" any case that can be correctly timebarred under the old rules.

There are examples of firms that either attempted to rely on "amber" letters to start the three years running or assumed that if the first red letter was sent within three years of May 2004 that it was covered by the old rules when in fact it was covered by the new rules.

I also came across a solitary case where a red letter was sent in 2000 but for some reason the provider had no record of sending a second reprojection. That should not have happened because it adhered to guidelines by the Association of British Insurers which required reprojections to be sent but it meant the timebar was not accepted - although the sales file showed that the policy was not missold anyway.