HELP!!! Missold Endowment

CarolWhite_2

First of all I would like to thank Martin Lewis for his expert advice concerning directly contacting the company that missold the policy rather than going through someone else at a cost.

Anyway, using the letter template provided by Endowmentaction, I directly contacted the Abbey, who sold me the policy with my mortgage over 10 years ago. I listed the reasons why I believed I was mis-sold the policy and also asked them to send me a copy of my endowment file. Within a couple of days I was sent a form to complete and return within 14 days, but refused to do so until I was sent a copy of my file. I did not get this file and kept communicating with the Abbey about this until I was told I would have to pay for the information at a local branch and formerly make a subject request. I did this and was informed the information would be sent within 40 days.

I awaited this information, but just recently received a letter informing me that part of my complaint was upheld and I would be compensated for any losses with an amount just over £3,000.

The point they make is that there is no proof that the adviser said the policy would definitely pay off the mortgage and that there would be a lump sum in addition at the end of the term. So unless I can provide evidence, the compensation will stay at this amount. They say if further evidence is provided they may revise this amount, which then may be more or less.

This conversation definitely took place and I am very willing to take an oath to this effect. They say they reviewed the documents they hold, but I don’t believe they even have it.

Please for all you out there who have experienced something similar, or to the experts, I would truly welcome some advice.

EdInvestor

So unless I can provide evidence, the compensation will stay at this amount. They say if further evidence is provided they may revise this amount, which then may be more or less.

Redress is a set amount determined by the regulator, putting you back in the position you would have been in if you had had a repayment mortgage. Apart from the passage of time (which could affect the performance of your endowment as stockmarkets go up or down), there would not seem to be any reason why the amount would vary, even if you had more "evidence" - they have already upheld your complaint anyway.

dunstonh

The point they make is that there is no proof that the adviser said the policy would definitely pay off the mortgage and that there would be a lump sum in addition at the end of the term.

Lack of documentary proof works in your favour not theirs.

and also asked them to send me a copy of my endowment file.

You are not entitled to it whilst a complaint is in progress.

As Ed says, you have won your complaint on technical grounds and you arent going to get any more redress. Indeed, you could get less, if you continue to delay accepting this amount.

vinno65

Hi Carol,
unfortunately although the head of the FSA John Tiner has told firms that verbal evidence from consumers is "good and sufficient evidence" they have chosen to ignore this and the FOS back them up. Basically they come from the point of view that everyone that makes this claim is both a liar and a chancer. I was told exactly the same as you and so were millions of others but this counts for nothing unfortunately as these people were clever enough never to gurantee anything in writing.

Also far from you winning on a technicality as Dunston thinks you did its more likely that as the sale was non compliant they would not have done a fact find and assessed your attitude to risk. They should also have ensured that an endowment was most suitable for your needs at the time and would have to priove this.

As for the redress it should put you back into the position you would have been in had you been sold a repayment mortgage, by cashing in the endowment and using the redress you should pay off a lump from your mortgage and convert the rest to repayment. This is why it is called redress not compensation as they are only giving you back your money you'll not get anything above and beyond that.

regards Vinno

dunstonh

Also far from you winning on a technicality as Dunston thinks you did its more likely that as the sale was non compliant they would not have done a fact find and assessed your attitude to risk. They should also have ensured that an endowment was most suitable for your needs at the time and would have to priove this.

So, that means the case was won on a technicality. They couldn't prove it was sold correctly but there wasnt proof that it was sold incorrectly either. So, with the current state of affairs, the requirement is for the advising firm to prove it wasnt mis-sold and they couldnt do that so redress is payable. What is more likely doesnt come into it.

unfortunately although the head of the FSA John Tiner has told firms that verbal evidence from consumers is "good and sufficient evidence" they have chosen to ignore this and the FOS back them up.

And rightfully so. Otherwise people could just make up anything and documents would be useless. In a court of law, documentary evidence beats verbal comments.

However, they have taken on board part of it in that if the company cannot prove with documentary evidence that it was sold correctly, then they will usually fall down on the side of the consumer.

vinno65

Hi Dunston,
You are wrong about the courts. It is up to the judge to decide who is the most believable witness. Of course if there is documentary evidence to dispute what some one is saying then their verbal evidence will be dismissed. However this is a case of " they said, I said". In my case told the judge what I had been told verbally, FP neither admitted nor denied what I had been told by their rep and they had no written evidence to dispute what I was saying. So the judge looking at the "facts" of the case, weighed it up and decided I was more believable.
You know and I know that sales scripts were used and people were told that there would be enough to pay off the mortgage and a large surplus at the end of term, whilst never being told that there was in fact the possibility of a shortfall. Nothing was ever put in writing officially( though I know personally of where people held on to scraps of paper where the advisor had made calculations showing a huge surplus) which is how firms are getting away with it. If Carol could get hold of a few witnesses who would give evidence saying that at the same time she was sold her endowment by the Abbey, they too were sold them and told there would be large surplusses with no mention of shortfalls, and given Abbey's record on complaint handling, who do you think a judge would believe?
regards Vinno

dunstonh

Exactly the point. There was no documentary evidence and that tends to favour the policyholder.

However, in the complaints process you will often get the response that they are not upholding the accusation of it being a mis-sale as there is no evidence to point to that. However, they will pay a redress because there is insufficient/no evidence that it was sold correctly either. So in effect you have three outcomes. Not upheld, not upheld but redress paid and upheld. To the consumer it doesnt matter if its the last 2 as the end result to them is the same.