Colonial and Winterthur Pension Endownment Miss-selling

Snapperjj

Colonial and Winterthur Pension Endownment Miss-selling.

I was tricked out of an endowment for a pension endowment and it has been proved that Colonial had miss-sold the policy in their own communications and settlements had been put forward. However they eventually would not honour their proposed settlements. The Pension Endownment ran 13x years beyond the date my mortgage was due to be repaid. During the dispute that was going no where and I felt that they were don't dealing with things very well. I refused to throw further good money after bad and stopped contributing.

Colonial offered a settlement that was kicked backwards and forwards because I would not allow them to continue holding onto my money. They did offer a way out of this where they would not hold on to the money. However when I agreed to this offer that they had made, they never honoured it and said they considered the matter closed

I later went to the PIA and the PIA gave incorrect evidence that they would not investigate the case but eventually did. They also found that the Colonial had miss-sold the policy. Because I was away on holiday when they sent a letter in reply to their resolve on the problem and I had not responded within a said small time limit. They were unable to enforce any form of judgement.

Winterthur has been no better at being honourable in settling the matter and I have never been able to have any meaningful discussions on the matter with them. They won't be drawn or discuss the matter further but do say that they will investigate. However they seem to have a shortage of paperwork and want to see what evidence I have against them. They refused to accept that the PIA investigated them until I proved otherwise.

I wonder if Colonial concealed much of the problem when Winterthur took them over.

I have since spoken to the FOS on the matter and they are happy for me to lodge a complaint with them.

As I see it Winterthur took over Colonial and all their responsibilities and they have a responsibility of due care to customers. As they still have my money and they have not paid out a settlement the nature of my complaint is that they still have a responsibility of due care.

I therefore see this as a breach of contract on the grounds that they failed to payout a settlement.

This has taken the best part of twenty years so far.

I have never had a letter of final response and the FOS say they have to supply such a letter.

So That is what I am waiting for so I can lodge a fresh complaint with the FOS.

If you are also having problems with Winterthur/Colonial because it would be nice to show that they are treating other customer the same way.

Does anyone have any advice on the matter before I lodge my complaint with the FOS.

Thanks

j

dunstonh

I later went to the PIA and the PIA gave incorrect evidence that they would not investigate the case but eventually did

The PIA never reviewed individual consumer complaints. That was not their remit.

Because I was away on holiday when they sent a letter in reply to their resolve on the problem and I had not responded within a said small time limit.

That must have been a very very long holiday.

They refused to accept that the PIA investigated them until I proved otherwise.

That is understandable given that the PIA didnt do that sort of thing.

I have since spoken to the FOS on the matter and they are happy for me to lodge a complaint with them.

I cant see how the FOS has any remit to get involved. You have 6 months to refer your case to the FOS after your initial complaint has been rejected (or not answered within 8 weeks of your complaint). You say the PIA was the regulatory body at the time. So, that means you made your complaint over a decade ago. Therefore well past the 6 month point. I wouldnt be surprised if the FOS request for information from the company was met with a time bar rejection. The FOS would have to accept that.

If you are also having problems with Winterthur/Colonial because it would be nice to show that they are treating other customer the same way.

They are both closed companies now owned by Resolution who basically take on dead insurance companies to run them down (although they have kept Friends Provident open for new business and to expand).

Does anyone have any advice on the matter before I lodge my complaint with the FOS.

When making your complaint, differentiate between the pension and an endowment. There is no such thing as a pension endowment. If your complaint is unclear or confusing then it makes it harder to get an outcome.

You say the PIA investigated your complaint. As mentioned, that was not their remit. Where people used to send letters of complaint to the PIA they would just forward the letter on to the company and ask for acknowledgement. So, don't be surprised that those at the firm don't believe you. So, have your evidence handy to back that statement up as they will just think the PIA did its norm of passing the letter on.

Don't make assumptions about what Colonial and Winterthur (and then AXA and now Phoenix) may or may not have done. Stick to facts. Paranoia and unsubstantiated accusations will not do your case any good.

Colonial offered you a settlement but you rejected it. With pensions, it was very common in the past to put a guarantee in place that required you to keep the pension with that provider. Mainly due to how things worked back then. Effectively they worked out the redress at maturity. So, they needed to have access to that pension. If you can get the FOS and Winterthur to agree for the FOS to look at your case then maybe pushing for reinstatement of that offer would be an effective option. However, you shouldnt expect to have full redress paid now as you stopped paying into the pension. The stopping of the payment would have to be factored into the redress.

Annisele

I wonder if the OP means the PIAOB rather than the PIA? The PIAOB did investigate individual complaints, and they might have given a one month timescale for him to accept an offer (which is relatively short, but it would still imply quite a long holiday).

I'm afraid I'm also confused by the reference to a "pension endowment"; dunstonh is right to say that there's no such thing.

I assume the OP had an interest only mortgage supported by some kind of pension product, but if referring the matter to FOS it's important to be clear on terminology (and the correct names of the organisations dealt with).

TrickyDicky101

dunstonh wrote: »

They are both closed companies now owned by Resolution who basically take on dead insurance companies to run them down (although they have kept Friends Provident open for new business and to expand).

This isn't actually the case: When Friends Provident purchased the AXA Life businesses, legacy Winterthur policies (including ex-Colonial) remained with the Winterthur businesses under AXA UK and will continue to do so until the completion of the Part VII (last I heard it is due to be complete in September 2011 - although note there is a chance this deadline may have slipped).

So one avenue of complaint may be to write to the Chief Executive of AXA Wealth Management which is still responsible for the Winterthur companies as I understand it.

Snapperjj

Thankyou for your replies.

Yes it is the PIAOB, I did not realise that they were different.

They gave a one month time scale to accept the verdict. I was working away at the time during the week and then had a fortnights holiday. On my return I wrote to them in relation to the verdict with a couple of questions because they had not covered some of the key points. I never got a reply and when I followed it up. I was told that it was past the agreement acceptance date and they could not talk to me further.

Prior to this letter I was never made aware that there would be a time scale to accept the verdict. However it was proved that the police was miss-sold and compensation should be paid.

Putting that to one side Colonial had agreed that the policy had been miss-sold and had offered compensation. However they have never paid it out.

As they have still got my money and the policy is still listed. Then they should still settle to their previous proposed settlement. They have never written to me with a final response and according to the FOS they have a duty to settle. They also have to give a letter of final response.

My initial complaint has never been rejected, they have simply never paid out.

You are correct that Colonial is no longer in existence. However they took on their business in a merger and would have to honour the contract and agreements.

In Colonial's last letter it states that it is still open, but would never pay out.

The pension endowment was sold to replace my then endowment.

dunstonh

Yes it is the PIAOB, I did not realise that they were different.

Yes. It also explains part of your issue and why they didnt believe you. Well done Annisele.

Prior to this letter I was never made aware that there would be a time scale to accept the verdict. However it was proved that the police was miss-sold and compensation should be paid.

Putting that to one side Colonial had agreed that the policy had been miss-sold and had offered compensation. However they have never paid it out.

If the company make an offer of settlement and you then decline that offer to go to an ombudsman, the offer is effectively taken off the table as the ombudsman outcome takes over (nowadays where the company settlement offer is correct, the FOS would just tell you to accept it and timescales wouldnt be as much an issue). So, that is why Colonial havent paid it. You turned them down.

As they have still got my money and the policy is still listed. Then they should still settle to their previous proposed settlement. They have never written to me with a final response and according to the FOS they have a duty to settle. They also have to give a letter of final response.

You say "according to the FOS". However, your post indicates that the FOS havent yet had a chance to make any ruling. Indeed, its not even clear that the FOS have any remit to make any ruling at this time. If you are referring to any initial phone call you make to the FOS to see if you have a case, then do not rely on that. Generically, the FOS phone team tell nearly everyone they may have a case and that they would like to take a look at it. Partly as those answering the phone are not going to have the information to hand and only receive confused information which may or may not be correct. You need to wait until you find out if they have jurisdiction to get involved. If they do, you then need to wait until they investigate it before quoting them as a source of what should or should not be done.

The pension endowment was sold to replace my then endowment.

There is no such thing as a pension endowment. It would either be a pension or an endowment. You should stop referring to it as a pension endowment as it adds confusion and complaints that are confusing are harder to settle. It sounds like you had an interest only mortgage with a personal pension (that replacement an interest only mortgage with an endowment). Although that may not be the case as you say the pension didnt mature until 13 years after the mortgage finished. As pensions could then be taken between any age between 50 and 75 (irrespective of the indicated start age), that would indicate the mortgage would have to have been repaid at age 37. So, whilst it looks like a pension linked mortgage, we cant be 100% sure.

Basically, you need to try and get the FOS to persuade Colonial to re-open the complaint and pay redress as they agreed.

Snapperjj

Thanks for your reply

The last communication I have from Colonial states the offer remains open. But they have never settled it.

j

magpiecottage

Snapperjj wrote: »

Thankyou for your replies.

Yes it is the PIAOB, I did not realise that they were different.

They gave a one month time scale to accept the verdict. I was working away at the time during the week and then had a fortnights holiday. On my return I wrote to them in relation to the verdict with a couple of questions because they had not covered some of the key points. I never got a reply and when I followed it up. I was told that it was past the agreement acceptance date and they could not talk to me further.

Prior to this letter I was never made aware that there would be a time scale to accept the verdict. However it was proved that the police was miss-sold and compensation should be paid.

Putting that to one side Colonial had agreed that the policy had been miss-sold and had offered compensation. However they have never paid it out.

As they have still got my money and the policy is still listed. Then they should still settle to their previous proposed settlement. They have never written to me with a final response and according to the FOS they have a duty to settle. They also have to give a letter of final response.

No they don't. If a PIAOB Ombudsman made a decision and you did not accept it within the required timescale then all Colonial (or its successor has to do is tell FOS that and ask it to dismiss your complaint.

I suspect, given your confusion about the PIA and the PIAOB, that you did not give FOS the right information when you called and so you got the wrong answer.

Snapperjj

So are you saying that a financially regulated company can miss sell. Offer a settlement, refuse to pay that settlement and there is nothing that can be done?

This all seem rather strange and crooked to me.