Question about mis sold endowment

Davgin_2

Hi
I hope someone can give me some advice on whether to send a claim letter about 2 endowment policies I have with Royal London. I started one in 1993 for 25 years as a plan to pay off a mortgage of £30K. I never actually had a mortgage at the time as I was not planning to buy a house but the salesman told me if I started the endowment when I actually needed a mortgage the endowment would guaratee me a interest only mortgage for £30k. When I did buy a house I got repayment mortgage and kept the endowment as a savings plan. The second I set up in 1999 for 15 years as an additional savings plan. I believe both these plans have life assurance and I believe I did not need this as I already had a Pension policy with the same company which had life assurance. I only recently realised these endowments had life assurance with the information in the press about mis selling policies.
Do I have grounds for a claim
Thanks Dave

Thrugelmir

The point about endowment policies is that the sum assured is paid on death. So it would be hard for you to retrospectively argue a case that you didn't now require the life assurance cover.

I'm sure that the cover would have been a selling point of the policies.

So while the investment returns are lower than you may have expected. There was a cost to the life assurance cover in the plans.

dunstonh

I believe both these plans have life assurance and I believe I did not need this as I already had a Pension policy with the same company which had life assurance.

Did you have a spouse/partner at the time of taking them out?

Do I have grounds for a claim

If you were single with no dependants at point of sale, then quite possibly. If you were no then no.

magpiecottage

A low cost mortgage endowment (which has top up cover) without a mortgage would only have been suitable in specific circumstances - so that may be one you can complain on. However, since you subsequently took out a repayment mortgage the firm may be able to argue that you should have complained when it became obvious you were not going to use it for a mortgage (i.e. when the repayment mortgage was taken out) and, if that was more than three years ago, timebar it.

The savings one is more difficult because it was never tied to a mortgage. The level of life cover involved is modest because it pays out that amount, plus bonuses at maturity or on death if earlier.

It needs to do this to secure (slightly) favourable tax treatment but the difference is modest because it is primarily an investment vehicle.

It may have been unsuitable for other reasons but the fact that it had some life cover is unlikely, on its own, to make the sale of an endowment savings policy unsuitable, even if there were no dependants.

Davgin_2

I was single at the time with no dependants

Davgin_2

The first endowment was not used to secure my first mortgage and I opted for a repayment. I have since had to use both endowments to secure my current interest only mortgage.

magpiecottage

In that case, they may argue that there has been no loss in respect of the first endowment because it did eventually get used for a mortgage and, because it will mature sooner, you will end up paying considerably less interest to your lender in the long run.

Put simply, if you end up better off you are not entitled to redress - it may be pure good luck but the purpose of the redress is to put you back into the position you would have been in but for the missale.

Its probably time to move on.