AVIVA's MVR ate my profit

magpiecottage

I will hazard a guess as to what will happen now:

EllenGB will complain to Aviva.

Aviva will identify that it did not sell the policy, reject the complaint and pass it the the IFA.

EllenGB will complain to FOS. FOS will write to Aviva. Aviva will write back explaining that they did not sell the policy.

FOS will reject the complaint.

Meanwhile, the IFA will be required to investigate the complaint. Of course, if the IFA is a client of mine then I will get to see the file but not able to tell everybody else about it.

They are probably not one of my clients, though - so I expect to never learn the outcome either.

browniej

ellenGB wrote: »

i didn't write that AVIVA review on a day by day basis. they note it's weekly and that's above.

I didn't see anything where it mentions how often they review the MVR. Do you have a link?

If you're interested, you can easily find the details of performance on AVIVA's website.

This was the only one I could find.

http://www.fundslibrary.co.uk/fundslibrary.dataretrieval/documents.aspx?user=Aviva_lifecust&type=packet_lp_fund_unit_doc_factsheet&Lipper=76002301

In it it says;

Our With-Profit Inflation Protected Guarantee Fund offers the potential for returns that are higher than those received from a bank or building society
average savings account.

The highlighted part seems to differ from what you wrote here though;

ellenGB wrote: »

I know exactly what is in the bond and what the aim is, ergo, beat what interest from building societies. It's there in black and white.

As it happens the return has beaten building society rates but my point is that you seem to be seeing something that is not there.

If their doc notes how well the bond is doing, they can't argue that the returns are below the level they normally expect. It's a contradiction.

I think we're either looking at the different reports or?

Mine says;

UK commercial property continues to deliver positive total returns though the rate of recovery has
slowed significantly in recent months. While there is still some investor demand, especially for prime assets, occupational demand is patchy and as a
result the short-term outlook looks difficult.

At least, in my reality. but that's the rub. We're not understanding each other.

That's certainly true.

magpiecottage

DunstonH and I have tried to explain why MVAs are necessary and also that EllenGB's assertions that the literature she was provided with did not explain them adequately are at odds with our experience of Aviva/Norwich Union.

We have been supported in this by a number of others.

One or two other posters have expressed contrary opinions which we have had shown to be flawed. Unfortunately EllenGB seems either unwilling or unable to accept our views, although she has produced no evidence to support her assertions.

That is her right, she is not on trial and we do not decide whether or not redress is due.

However, the fact that she says, at #43, the Financial Ombudsman has accepted her case does not mean she will be entitled to redress for the loss she perceives.

Aviva can still argue that the MVA was an exercise of commercial judgement and, as I have previously noted, that she has suffered no financial loss compared to the alternative of putting it on deposit.

She is entitled to fight on but risks merely making herself look silly.

browniej

magpiecottage wrote: »

She is entitled to fight on but risks merely making herself look silly.

Just out of interest.

What are the possible repurcussions for the IFA if this goes to the FOS? Is he/she penalised even though the FOS may find there is no case to answer?

magpiecottage

browniej wrote: »

What are the possible repurcussions for the IFA if this goes to the FOS? Is he/she penalised even though the FOS may find there is no case to answer?

That would depend. If EllenGB takes Aviva to FOS, the IFA is not involved and will not have to respond.

Initially, only Aviva will have to respond to the complaint unless they identify it as a complaint against the IFA and pass it on to him to respond to. In my experience, Aviva tend to do this.

He, or his firm or network (a sort of umbrella firm that some IFAs authorised through) will have to respond to it. That will involve somebody's time - either the IFA will deal with it himself (which normally only happens with "one man band" businesses) or somebody else will. If it is somebody else then they will want to be paid for their time. If it is the IFA himself then it will divert him from running his business profitably. Either way, it is costly.

If the complaint against the IFA went to FOS then he is likely to incur a fee of £500 - and again there will be a time cost involved.

I am not sure, at this stage, though, that EllenGB has actually complained to Aviva who need to be given a chance to respond (probably in the way I expect) first.

magpiecottage

ellenGB wrote: »

No one will make me feel silly

I doubt they will. I said you would LOOK silly - but your responses suggest you are impervious to other's views.

ellenGB wrote: »

It would only be a waste of my time.

No - its a waste of Aviva's time, which its other customers will be paying for.

And its a waste of FOS time, which could be used clearing complaints where there is a case to answer. Which in turn means you are wasting the time of those complainants.

ellenGB wrote: »

and I don't care what AVIVA thinks of me.

That statement reminds me of a doctor who once prescribed amoxycillin to a relative of mine who was already known to be allergic to penicillin then stood at the foot of the bed and claimed not to be able to see the rash all over the patient's body, refusing to take any notice of the patient's parents and the nursing staff.

Rollinghome

magpiecottage wrote: »

No - its a waste of Aviva's time, which its other customers will be paying for.

I haven't followed this thread but the idea that customers shouldn't complain against insurance companies because that will reduce their profits and so impact on other customers seems more than usually wacky even for this board.

magpiecottage wrote: »

That statement reminds me of a doctor who once prescribed amoxycillin to a relative of mine who was already known to be allergic to penicillin then stood at the foot of the bed and claimed not to be able to see the rash all over the patient's body, refusing to take any notice of the patient's parents and the nursing staff.

Er, well yes, thank you for sharing that with us all.

ellenGB

Thank you so much, rolllinghome. Appreciate this.

magpiecottage

Rollinghome wrote: »

I haven't followed this thread but the idea that customers shouldn't complain against insurance companies because that will reduce their profits and so impact on other customers seems more than usually wacky even for this board.

EllenGB said she was only wasting her own time - I was pointing out that it was not true.

Rollinghome wrote: »

Er, well yes, thank you for sharing that with us all.

I was emphasising that she seems unwilling to accept any opinion except the one she came here with - which is not going to help her.

magpiecottage

ellenGB wrote: »

thank you to all who offered advise without making me appear stupid or unreasonable.

I don't think anybody offering a view to you has done so with the intention of making you appear stupid or unreasonable.

You seem to have chosen to make that interpretation of views which contradict what you want from which the rest of us will draw our own conclusions.

My conclusions are based on the fact that your assertions are at odds with my experience of the firm involved and, as any scientist knows, you change your hypothesis in the light of the evidence. I have suggested you provide the evidence you claim but unless and until I see it, I am not changing my hypothesis.