Zurich Life Assuarance Policy Cancelled. Stuck with HUGE bill.

kingstreet

In the form you complete for FOS, it asks you why you feel the complaint hasn't been completed to your satisfaction and asks you what should be done to put things right for you.

In this case, I don't see how the OP could phrase the issue without the initial checks at FOS weeding it out.

You might feel Openwork was taking an easy option by suggesting an error had occurred. The problem will be proving that wasn't the case and what hardship the OP suffered as a result.

lisyloo

So Kings can issue a vexatious claim against the OP

I'm not sure of the definition of vexatious, but there is a difference between a genuine error (however distressing) and an intention to rob.

dunstonh

The complaints team would refer serious breaches to the compliance team to investigate. So, the individual could be getting a whole load of grief now without you knowing. Going to the FOS is not going to change what the firm do to the individual.

HelpWhereIcan

In 2002-2003 I worked for a firm which was an appointed representative of the Zurich Advice Network - to all intents and purposes a predecessor to Openwork (ZAN).

These agreements were very common amongst the ZAN firms and were gleefully described as a way to ensure the customer did a protection plan with you. In fact I think the template started with one firm and was passed from firm to firm by various Regional managers within ZAN.

They were not based on hourly rates or calculated in any way other than being huge enough for the customer to prefer doing the life cover with the firm rather than have to pay the fee (not that they would ever be charged it if they refused the life cover).

Many people knew that the agreement was not enforceable in a court as it was very poorly drafted and contained unfair terms as magpiecottage points out.

They also had no expectation of using the agreement for anything other than to frighten the customer into reinstating a cancelled policy or taking out a new one.

In all discussions I had with company owners they told me they would expect to offer to waive the fee if the customer agreed to take a new plan or reinstate the old one.

It could be argued there is no way this was an admin error and Openwork are now joining their Appointed Representative in hoping that you go away and leave them to get on with making money.

magpiecottage wrote: »

On what grounds? - going to FOS purely out of spite to incur the fee will probably result in the case being thrown out as vexatious. The fee will not be charged but there are circumstances in which a firm is permitted by the FSA to charge for vexatious complaints.

You may decide to complain because you feel this is a firm who quite clearly fails to achieve outcome one of Treating Customers Fairly

"Consumers can be confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture."

You may feel that central to this firm's culture is bullying and scaring customers into action in pursuit of money.

Many in the industry would admit to knowing firms like that and most would agree that they desire nothing more than to see them gone from the industry.

Some people feel these firms need to be either driven out or hit in the pocket until it is not worth their while financially to use poorly drafted unfair fee agreements to get money out of people.

Many IFAs operate perfectly clear and fair fee agreements and rogue firms do nothing but damage the reputation of the majority and consumer willingness to accept fees in general as fair.

You may decide that you want write back to Openwork and ask for a D&I (distress and inconvenience payment) - this is something the Financial Ombudsman Service expects all firms to consider whether the complainant asks for it or not. If they don't make an offer you may want to take it to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/distress-and-inconvenience.htm

"Usually, the question of awarding compensation only arises after a business, or its appointed agent, has breached a duty or been responsible for maladministration in its dealings with the consumer. "Maladministration" might include delays, clerical or procedural errors, rudeness, incorrect or inadequate explanations or simply a failure to respond to the consumer's reasonable requests.

We will not automatically award compensation just because the consumer has suffered some distress or inconvenience – it has to have been caused by the financial business."




"There are no hard-and-fast rules about the amounts that will be appropriate in making awards. They will depend on the circumstances of each individual case, which might include:

• the severity of any distress;
• the degree of any inconvenience;
• the period over which the problem occurred;
• the nature of business’s actions (or inaction)."

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/14/feb-awardsfordistress.htm

'"Inconvenience" can include any expenditure of the customer’s time and/or effort that has resulted from the firm's conduct. Again, in relatively minor cases this may not amount to a significant burden. But it can include severe disruption and a great deal of wasted time.




The briefing paper provides full details of our approach but, in essence, we consider that awards may be made where:

• an award for a financial loss fails sufficiently to recognise the distress, inconvenience or other non-financial loss that the firm has caused the customer; or
• the firm has caused distress and/or inconvenience to a customer, even though it has not caused the customer financial loss through its maladministration, injustice or service failure. "

magpiecottage

HelpWhereIcan wrote: »

You may decide to complain because you feel this is a firm who quite clearly fails to achieve outcome one of Treating Customers Fairly

"Consumers can be confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture."

I agree. However that would be a matter for the FSA rather than FOS.

The OP has sent me a copy of the agreement and my company has already passed it to the FSA as I considered it in the public interest to do so.


I generally agree with the rest of HelpWhereICan's post but there is a trade off here.

Pursuing the complaint can also be pretty stressful and the OP might be better advised to no move on.