Advisor appears to have tampered with original documents

Crazy_Saver

Churning when churning is best advice is acceptable. That paragraph could get easily satisfy the FOS.

Just my luck!

defender_of_the_weak

The details of this churn look decidedly iffy. What was the value of the original policy that was so expensive. Given that the difference was 9.10 why not use a low start and existing plan given that the mortgage (I am guessing) was fairly sizeable. This is cut and paste guff from the compliance man.

With regards to your comments regarding no incentive to lie a couple of observations. This document may have been supplied to the compliance officer by the adviser, more than possible if it was a network. I have received a final decision letter this morning and whilst the reviewer has not totally lied he has been more than economical with the truth to manage down the compensation offered. This has taken two years to resolve and the reviewer and his network should be totally ashamed of themselves

Crazy_Saver

The details of this churn look decidedly iffy. What was the value of the original policy that was so expensive. Given that the difference was 9.10 why not use a low start and existing plan given that the mortgage (I am guessing) was fairly sizeable. This is cut and paste guff from the compliance man.

Hi defender of the weak!

That is exactly how I feel. The original policy was £48k and we remortgaged for £60k a difference of only £12k. Oh if only I could have had my wise old head on my naive young shoulders back in 1991:mad:

defender_of_the_weak

So unless finances were really tight he should have kept the old policy, and either sold a small top up or even part endowment part repayment. Take the case to the Financial Ombudsman Service and keep your fingers crossed

Tiggs_2

dunstonh wrote:

It generally considered that people will forget around 70% of what is told to them in an area they know nothing about.

Its amazing that, considering the importance of the documentation, so few advisers ever ensure they can prove any of what they did.

Its quite possible for a FA to hand over no Key Facts, no business card, not disclose their status - to then skip a quote and a Key Facts - to never send a reason why letter and to write up the fact find after the event. As long as the client didnt pay much attention to the documents the provider sends he/she would get away with it very very easily.

I have EVERY client sign a checklist detailing various parts of the process to ensure they know they have got what they should have and been told what they need to be - threads like this just show how exposed everyone is when that doesnt happen.

Funily enough i started this after a cleint went via the FOS with an issue about another FA and lost after documents turned up he had never seen (Columbo could had lost has other eye and still spotted the "photocopied after the event" look of those documets!)

Ian_W

I'm certainly no expert on endowments [as d/h will verify!] but I ended up with 3 policies, the latter ones topping up the original as we went up the property ladder. These were all from the 80's and if memory serves me right, by the early to mid 90's the then regulators [Fimbra? Lautro?] were highlighting churning as being prima facia mis-selling and a generally dodgy practice.

On the one hand you were saving £9.10 per month [about £13 at to-days values] on your mortgage and would receive a lump sum by trading in your existing policy if money was tight. However, you would probably [depending how long it had been running] have received back less then you'd paid in.

On the other hand you already had an EP worth 80% of the loan, the advisor would likely make 4x more commission by selling a £60k policy than a £12k top-up. Unless they advised you of the potential loss surrendering would bring about and you insisted on doing so I personally think it is difficult to consider that "best advice".

I certainly don't know how the FOS will view this, but I would have thought the advisors financial interest in selling a larger policy would be seen as significant.

matto

If I read this correctly, you sold your existing endowment and took out a new endowment policy which was supposed to pay back a higher amount but the amount you paid into the new policy was less than what you paid into the old one? Or does it actually mean that the new policy costs less than the old policy plus the top-up?

I think expecting you to pay off a larger amount by way of smaller monthly payments (presumably over the same term) would be bad advice.

Is there any indication that a top-up endowment was considered at all?

Crazy_Saver

So unless finances were really tight he should have kept the old policy, and either sold a small top up or even part endowment part repayment. Take the case to the Financial Ombudsman Service and keep your fingers crossed

That's what one would have presumed an honest and fair advisor would have told us to do. We had our heads far to high in the sky at the time ( in the process of getting married and buying a new house)to realise we were making such an awful mistake.

Crazy_Saver

On the one hand you were saving £9.10 per month [about £13 at to-days values] on your mortgage and would receive a lump sum by trading in your existing policy if money was tight. However, you would probably [depending how long it had been running] have received back less then you'd paid in.

We took out the existing policy around Aug 87 and surrendered in Sept 91. I think payments were around £75 pcm-I will check this evening. I think we received about £2000. And money definately wasn't that tight that an extra £9.10 pcm would have prevented us from moving which is what the company is implying in their final response letter.

Crazy_Saver

If I read this correctly, you sold your existing endowment and took out a new endowment policy which was supposed to pay back a higher amount but the amount you paid into the new policy was less than what you paid into the old one? Or does it actually mean that the new policy costs less than the old policy plus the top-up?

Not sure on the exact figures but will check them this evening.I don't think a top up was ever mentioned. I think the only quotes we had were for a new endowment. I could be wrong will definately check and let you know.

Is there any indication that a top-up endowment was considered at all?

No there is no mention at all that I can find in amongst all the strange photocopies that I have been sent.