Misold endownment fault, Building Societry or lender?

BML

Right, here is where it gets interesting because my son-in-law received a letter today from Prudential stating the following.
"When you took out your plan, it was sold to you by Anglia Building Society. They should have assessed your needs and recommended the best option based on your personal circumstances. As they were working on your behalf, they could have suggested plans or other financial products from a range of companies.
We have written to your financial adviser on your behalf, enclosing a copy of your letter, asking them to investigate and reply to you directly."
My son-in-law has no memory of a financial advisor unless of course Prudential are referring to Anglia but at least we now know who to contact now so even though I understand that a complaint may well be out of time I think it’s worth testing my son-in-law's entitlement.

dunstonh

"When you took out your plan, it was sold to you by Anglia Building Society. They should have assessed your needs and recommended the best option based on your personal circumstances. As they were working on your behalf, they could have suggested plans or other financial products from a range of companies.

So that means that Pru have no liability for any complaint as they didnt sell it. They are saying that the agent recorded is Anglia B/S.

My son-in-law has no memory of a financial advisor unless of course Prudential are referring to Anglia but at least we now know who to contact now so even though I understand that a complaint may well be out of time I think it’s worth testing my son-in-law's entitlement.

In that era they wouldnt really be financial advisers. A sort of broker. Its pre-regulation so depolorasition hadn't come into effect yet. Back then, even members of the public could hold an insurance agency.

Prudential have been timebarring endowments although they started later than everyone else. They will be able to let your son-in-law know if it is time barred or not.

magpiecottage

Anglia WAS a member of the Building Societies' Ombudsman scheme so FOS does have jurisdiction.

However, Prudential started timebarring about five years ago so it seems unlikely that the complaint would be upheld.

Picking up on point by DunstonH that it seems unlikely that he might not remember the difference between "could" and "would", it seems from your posting that he "remembered" being sold the policy by Nationwide when, in reality it was Anglia.

In fact, Anglia subsequently merged with Nationwide but the story given does not match the evidence well enough to persuade me that he accurately remembers what was said.

BML

magpiecottage stated, “In fact, Anglia subsequently merged with Nationwide but the story given does not match the evidence well enough to persuade me that he accurately remembers what was said.”
I don't think that it matters whether magpicottage is convinced or not as to whether my son-in-law accurately remembers what was said.
In my post I stated, “He tells me that when he bought the house he was told by the building society that he sought a mortgage from that he would only receive a mortgage if he accepted an endowment mortgage. When he approached the lender he was told that the endowment would not only pay of the mortgage but he would also receive a lump sum.” Both of these two matters should give cause for concern.

dunstonh

I don't think that it matters whether magpicottage is convinced or not as to whether my son-in-law accurately remembers what was said.

In the scheme of things no it doesnt. However, magpiecottage handles complaints as an occupation and gives an insight in to how these things are looked at.

When a complaint is made and is lacking documentary proof, then often a balance of probability decision needs to be made. To ascertain the most likely story (as neither party has likely responded in a way that reflects what actually happened), the complaint and the response are looked at for inconsistencies or unlikely events. The side that is least credible often goes on to lose. If a complaint is made that indicates perfect recollection of what was said but is then shown to be wrong in a range of areas then the credibility is lost.

BML

dunstonh
Fair point, I stand corrected.

BML

I apologise for taking up more of your time and its time to put this matter to bed. As I see it there were three features in place when someone bought an endowment policy.
1. The person buying the policy.
2. The organisation selling the policy.
3. The organisation owning or managing the policy.
I would suggest that in those cases of what I will call mis-selling "1" were culpable because they sold what was the most profitable for them but "2" were also culpable because they sold something when they were aware that the policies were not going to produce what their marketing claimed.
This is probably academic now because the organisations involved will fight tooth and nail to avoid their moral responsibility. What I find most worrying is that these sort of experiences have shattered the faith and trust that most people used to have in the whole financial industry from banking to house insurance.