Mis Sold Pension

caribdog

I have been looking into my endowments with various 3rd parties to see if I could claim back on a miss sold endowment. Various people I spoke to told me I was not covered, as I had taken it out before legislation came in. How ever one of the companies asked me about my pension and told me it sounded as though I have been mis-sold. In turn they said that the government had put money aside for mis-sold pension's and I would be able to get money back from the company I got my pension from via a mis-sold claim. But if I left it to long there wouldn't be so much money to claim back.

Does anyone know much about this?


this?[EMAIL="lancefield@talk21.com"]lancefield@talk21.com[/EMAIL]

dunstonh

The Govt has put no money aside for personal pension mis-selling. There has been a couple of claims companies advertising by pretending that there is some magic pot full of money you are entitled to and that is not the case.

The Govt has put in place a scheme for occupational pensions but that isnt a claims scheme.

If it is personal pension, you may also be time barred now if you havent claimed already as pension mis-selling was dealth with years ago.

Even if your complaint was successful, you wouldnt get a payout. Redress is paid into a pension plan and not into your pocket.

Personal pension mis-selling generally covers the period from 1988 to 1993. With the exception of FIMBRA advisers who didnt go onto to become regulated by the PIA (now FSA) and a few other areas, you would be covered under the various complaints proceedures that exist today.

Can you give a bit more about why you think you were mis-sold?

caribdog

It didn't cross my mind about being mis-sold until it was mentioned. They asked me a few questions like: if I new how much the financial advisor would be taking from my pension during its duration, that quotes on predicted funds would be x amnount.

caribdog

If yo go on https://www.morgangreenlimited.com then go to pensions you will see some of the quetions on there.

dunstonh

Most of their pension text relates to pension mortgages.

There is a bit on contracting out but we dont know what is going to happen with contracting out. The FSA have stated that they will not review contracting out on a retrospective basis (using todays standards of advice and documentation on cases sold under a different regime and era). Plus, there are also issues as to whether it was bad advice or not. For example, in 1996, the SIB (which is now the FSA) said that all those that had contracted out were financially better off for doing so. So up to that point, it seems fair to have been contracted out. However, they have highlighted around 200,000 (i think it was that figure) that did contract out outside of the recommended age limits and it is possible that the advising companies will be asked to review those 200,000 to check for suitability. Also, contracting out is not all bad. There are advantages and its not a clear cut issue like endowment vs repayment.

If I was perhaps being cynical, I could suggest that the FSA are delaying their report on contracting out to a time when they hope the stocmarkets are higher and many of those that were better off in 1996, who became worse off in 2001/2 after the crash have gone back to being better off again in the recovery. By that time, most if not all, the zombie funds will be contracted back in and there will be no case to answer.

Back to you though, you need to be aware that ambulance chasers will smell a compensation payout whether there is a mis-sale or not. Many will manipulate information or lack of information in the attempt to force compensation when none is due. Some go as far to lie on the complaints letters. There is pressure on the Govt to act on these companies. Also, lets say you do have a genuine case and the complaint is upheld and £10,000 is paid into your pension as redress (as you dont get it) and the ambulance chaser you use wants 20%, then you would be billed for £2000 plus VAT on that complaint. The insurance company does not pay it and the redress will not be increased to cover it. It will come out of your pocket.

EdInvestor

Also, lets say you do have a genuine case and the complaint is upheld and £10,000 is paid into your pension as redress (as you dont get it) and the ambulance chaser you use wants 20%, then you would be billed for £2000 plus VAT on that complaint. The insurance company does not pay it and the redress will not be increased to cover it. It will come out of your pocket.

If you are over 50, you can take benefits and thus release 25% in tax free cash,which could be used to pay the fee.

defender_of_the_weak

I went to their site and it mentions an 'initial fee'. How much is it and do you get it back if they are unsuccesful. Also, their fees are way too high at 15% plus VAT. If you have a pension case, and it was genuinely mis-sold the redress is usually significantly higher than that involved with endowments. This means that you could lose almost all your tax free cash to the firm. Thats why we only charge 5% plus VAT for pensions.

With regard to pressure on these companies it is already here and we are due to be regulated in the next few months.

As a matter of balance from the ambulance chasers view, some big companies, advisers and reviewers lie in the rejection of totally genuine complaints

dunstonh

I dont class you as an ambulance chaser DOTW. However, you do know that some of these companies are acting out of control.

In this case, they have basically suggested a claim should be made on the pension without knowing if the pension was mis-sold or not. They have said there is a govt pot to pay this money which there is not. They havent said that their percentage would be paid out of caribdog's pocket and not any potential redress. All the things the complaints company complain about, such as you werent told this, you werent told that, they have done themselves.

A geniune complaint should always be dealt with fairly and shame on those few companies that do not. However, the claims companies should be whiter than white and not act in a dishonest manner as a number of them are currently.

If they continue to push these false claims through at the current rate, it is only a matter of time that the system will be altered and it will be those with the genuine claims that lose out.

defender_of_the_weak

Dunston, couldnt agree more. I'm hoping the current regulation proposed will get rid off some of the iffier companies. Particularly those that cold call and promise success before knowing anything at all which seems to be the case here. Methinks they are more interested in the initial assessment fee than any real prospect of success

dunstonh

I just had a phone call from one of my clients saying a lady from Morgan Green had contacted him saying his pension had been mis-sold. Morgan Green wanted £400 up front and 15% of redress.

They have not asked for any of his pension details and told him he was mis-sold. So how the hell they can work that out, I dont know. As it happens he was contracted out in 1987 and contracted back in April 1994. I basically told him what I said in this thread. That they were trying it on and had no hope of getting a penny. Clearly they are looking for this £400 up front.

defender_of_the_weak

Are they Vickers Anderson in disguise?

To anyone thinking of using a claim company one piece of simple advice, never ever pay anything up front. If they don't have the confidence or knowledge to understand and fight your case on a no win no fee basis then don't deal with them