Does no-one cares? Pre 1988 endowments

foreversummer

Same here. I had an endowment policy purchased in 1984 through a building society and I successfully made a mis-selling claim. I didn't receive any compensation though as they calculated I wasn't due any.

The claim was based on the fact that they didn't tell me there was a risk the policy would not cover the mortgage only that there would be a nice surplus at the end which I could do with what I liked. So pre-regulation you have to go for duty of care.

dunstonh

karnold wrote: »

Can someone please tell me why the FSCS wont deal with claims before AUG 1988 when the regulations came in before that date in APR 1988.

My endowmwnt was sold to me between these dates and the FCSC have been my last hope and wont help.

Regulation started in April 1988. However, consumer protection against firm failure didnt start until August 1988.

holly_hobby

Pre regulation - the "adviser" did not have a duty of care to ensure best advice or the suitability of the product to the individuals personal and financial circumstances. But by the same measure, they also could not mis-reprsent the product and its benefits.

Therefore from an invesitagive point of view, pre-regulation sales do not fall within the realms of proving suitability, as there will be no fact find or reasons why/suitability letter to review in any case - as none would have been provided.

Therefore to get a pre-reg sale reviewed you would have to have proof that the "adviser" had mis-represented the terms and benefits of the product you purchased - which would proven by any documents/sales diagrams given to you whereby it could be proven they had mis-represented the terms and benefits of the contract). But can also be proven after considering your recollection and situation at the time of the sale, compared with the product purchased and the requirements of it)


My roles within business review, as a senior complaint handler and auditor for 4 large and v well known providers, lead me to say that not one of them would entertain a pre-regulation sale. (as an additional note LCEs effected in the 1980s don't tend, in general, to be the ones with the shortfalls - or certainly not huge ones if any at all).

Indeed, 2 of the providers also relied upon the Limitation Act 1980 (15 yr long stop) to further block such complaints.

I am afraid that you will struggle to get this case reviewed due to the reasons stated (and I would also suspect you are out of time now regardless).

Holly

magpiecottage

karnold wrote: »

Can someone please tell me why the FSCS wont deal with claims before AUG 1988 when the regulations came in before that date in APR 1988.

My endowmwnt was sold to me between these dates and the FCSC have been my last hope and wont help.

From what you say, it sounds as though the business no longer exists and therefore you cannot pursue a complaint against it.

Although the Financial Services Act 1986 came into force on 29 April 1988, it was not until 28 August that year that the Investors' Compensation Scheme came into being and complaints about activities before it existed could not be considered by it. The FSCS has now taken responsibility for the ICS but is still bound by its rules.

magpiecottage

holly_hobby wrote: »

to get a pre-reg sale reviewed you would have to have proof that the "adviser" had mis-represented the terms and benefits of the product you purchased - which would proven by any documents/sales diagrams given to you whereby it could be proven they had mis-represented the terms and benefits of the contract).

Essentially, it is necessary to show a breach of the Misrepresentation Act 1968.

LCEs effected in the 1980s don't tend, in general, to be the ones with the shortfalls - or certainly not huge ones if any at all

Unfortunately some are now seem showing them - this seems to be due to the interference of the FSA forcing providers to get out of equities into deposits at the bottom of the market, just as the smart money was starting to move back in!

2 of the providers also relied upon the Limitation Act 1980 (15 yr long stop) to further block such complaints.

That can only be done if the complainant is not entitled to go to FOS and must rely on the courts.

holly_hobby

magpiecottage wrote: »

Essentially, it is necessary to show a breach of the Misrepresentation Act 1968.

.

Exactly, as evidence of best advice/suitability didn't prevail pre-reg - it is up to the consumer to prove the product & its benefits were mis-represented

magpiecottage wrote: »

Unfortunately some are now seem showing them - this seems to be due to the interference of the FSA forcing providers to get out of equities into deposits at the bottom of the market, just as the smart money was starting to move back in!.

The value of WP LCEs maturing during the last 10 or so yrs, have also been heavily effected by the significant reductions, and in some cases complete loss of the TB too

magpiecottage wrote: »

That can only be done if the complainant is not entitled to go to FOS and must rely on the courts.

Yes maybe - but the 2 Providers in quesion ( re pre A day complaints recd early to miss 00's) believed this to be a valid defence (not saying I or others in the dept did), in conjunction with the other areas defining pre A day sales to post A day sales i.e no requirement to prove suitability etc. This approach had naturally been authorised by their legal dept. Whether they have since been challenged by the complainants on this point I don't know. Although I don't recall that the Providers had been challenged by FOS over this whilst I was there, so I presume no complainant took it further at the time.

I feel for the OP, and can appreciate why he feels aggreaved - hopefully the policy will out perform the prescribed growth rate illustrations & have a decent TB to boot .... emphasis on HOPEFULLY !!!!

Fingers crossed for the OP

Holly