Endowment complaint failures

Anabiosis

Hi All,

This is my first post and I'm posting in complete and utter despair at the way endowment complaints are handled.

I've received some bad news today in that the Financial Ombudsman Service has provisionally reversed a decision to uphold my complaint about mis-selling. I'm totally gutted ! After more than three years of letter writing and waiting for a decision I can't believe this.

Has anyone on here managed to reverse a situation like this ? I've got one more chance to present information to change the ombudsman's decision.

I thought I had good grounds for my complaint as I didn't have a house or dependents at the time I took out the policy, but it seems that the Ombudsman doesn't consider this a valid reason.

To be frank I can't see a set of circumstances where a complaint would be upheld. Has anyone on here had a decision go their way and if so what were the criteria ? I'd be interested to know other people's reasons why they were mis-sold. It seems there's no consistency in the procedure and I feel badly let down.

Thanks in advance for any responses.

Kind regards

dunstonh

I thought I had good grounds for my complaint as I didn't have a house or dependents at the time I took out the policy, but it seems that the Ombudsman doesn't consider this a valid reason.

If you were sold a mortgage endowment and didnt have a property purchase going with it then the FOS virtually always upholds those as valid complaints.

If it was a savings endowment and taken out before approx1996, then they will not uphold that is a valid reason as that was generally the mainstream regular contribution investment plan that was available then. ISAs didnt come in until later and Regular contribution PEPs often had £100pm minimum premiums and many tied companies didnt even offer them and if they didnt offer them, they didnt have to recommend them.

So, was yours a mortgage endowment or a savings endowment?

Anabiosis

Hi,

Thanks for your response.

Mine was a mortgage endowment and at the time of selling I was 22 and single with no dependents. I didn't have a house at the time although I did purchase one five months later and was saving for one at the time the policy was sold.

I feel it would have been more appropriate for the financial advisor (sic) to tell me to continue saving and come and see him again when I was closer to buying a property. I could then have made a choice with regard to mortgages with all options open. Obviously a repayment mortgage wasn't an option once the endowment was in place. I'm fairly sure the financial advisor saw the opportunity to sell a high profit product over simply advising me to continue saving. I gained nothing what so ever from his so called advice.

However having said all that the FOS has provisionally sided in favour with the sellers. Given the weight of evidence I can't see how anyone would ever have a complaint upheld.

I can provide more information if required. Right now I'm looking to strengthen my argument so I can write one final letter presenting my case.

Thanks for reading my post and providing input.

Kind regards

dunstonh

Mine was a mortgage endowment and at the time of selling I was 22 and single with no dependents. I didn't have a house at the time although I did purchase one five months later and was saving for one at the time the policy was sold.

Thats going to be the problem for you. An endowment and house sale within 5 months is acceptable. The gap would have needed to be a bit bigger for it to be considered a "pre sale" endowment, which would have been ruled in your favour.

However having said all that the FOS has provisionally sided in favour with the sellers. Given the weight of evidence I can't see how anyone would ever have a complaint upheld.

A lot of the decision is based on the evidence available. If the evidence supports the adviser, then invariably the adviser wins. If the evidence doesnt support the adviser, then the policyholder wins. You do get occassional weird decisions which can be over turned but if the evidence is strong against you, then you wont have much of a chance.

I would say your strongest approach is to work on the pre-sale side. Things that would work in your favour are if the endowment that was sold had a different sum assured to the amount borrowed. That would make it clearly inappropriate. If its exactly the same, it would "suggest" that it wasnt a pre-sale endowment.

Anabiosis

Hi,

Thanks again for your advice. In my case the basic sum assured i.e. the amount payable on death was £61k, however this was pre-sold and at the time I had no definite plans to purchase a house. In the end I took out a mortgage for £51k.

KRs

dunstonh

In which case, you should get it referred to an ombudsman rather than a checker as it was sold before mortgage and the sum assured doesnt match the need.

Anabiosis

Unfortunately for me the adjudicator upheld my case and referred it to an ombudsman who overturned the decision (provisionally).

I've got a few weeks to put forward my case why this isn't fair or put forward new evidence.

I've not been impressed with the decision logic and everything seems highly biased in favour of the finance companies. Like I said in my first post, I can't see a case being upheld as there always seems to be a get out or an excuse.

Do you know of a post where the reasons for mis-selling are given ? I'd like to double check at this eleventh hour that I haven't missed anything.

Thanks for your assistance.

KRs

dunstonh

I've not been impressed with the decision logic and everything seems highly biased in favour of the finance companies.

You will find just the reverse opinion from those in financial services.

Unfortunately for me the adjudicator upheld my case and referred it to an ombudsman who overturned the decision (provisionally).

Can you give us more reason on why it was overturned. Hopefully DOTW will be along soon to give his comment as a pre-sale endowment is normally enough to be classed as a mis-sale.

Anabiosis

Hi,

Thanks for the response. I can give more details, but the response runs to 8 pages. I can scan them to pdf and email if it will assist. Will reply over email tomorrow if possible.

I think the gist of the refusal to side with me was that the additional life cover only amounted to a small fraction of the overall £75 monthly fee. So the ombudsman seemed to concur that the additional life cover was unnecessary, but still failed to see my side of the argument. This was the area where the adjudicator upheld my complaint.

Thanks.

KRs

defender_of_the_weak

Anabiosis

I have sent you a pm to see if I can help

dunstonh

Told you DOTW would be along at some point. When facing a strange decision from the Ombudsman, he would be the best person on the board to help you.