AVIVA's MVR ate my profit

darkpool

magpiecottage wrote: »

EllenGB still has not provided a copy of the Key Features that would have been provided at outset and, unless and until she does, I remain of the view that Aviva will have provided the required information in a way that most people would consider clear, fair and not misleading.

As far as Darkpool is concerned, getting back only a couple of percent more than you put in is unfortunate but that does not make it unfair.

What would be unfair would be if, say, you owned 10 per cent of the overall value of the fund but were allowed to take 12 per cent out of it unless it was in clearly defined circumstances. If the fund had nine other investors each owning 10 per cent, they would rightly be unhappy with Aviva.

Therefore, your argument that an MVR breaches regulations intended to achieve fair treatment is a nonsense.

what makes it unfair is when a company misleads investors into the value of their investments. it's also unfair when the talk of "smoothing" is just marketing spiel. no matter how you put it MVR are taking back previous "guaranteed" bonuses

opinions4u

darkpool wrote: »

i possibly did, what was the point in your opinion?

contracts can be set aside.......

Indeed they can.

But you were provided with details of a case when contractual terms around bank charges were not set aside.

And then started quoting legislation.

what makes it unfair is when a company misleads investors into the value of their investments. it's also unfair when the talk of "smoothing" is just marketing spiel. no matter how you put it MVR are taking back previous "guaranteed" bonuses

I haven't seen the Key Facts document, but if it says something like:

1) You can withdraw at any time, subject to an MVR if your withdrawal exceeds 5% of your investment

2) For a period of 6 months at 5 years, and any time after 10 years, we will not apply an MVR

It is clear and fair. No bonuses taken away. An MVR applied if you're not at one of the key withdrawal timeslots or choosing to withdraw only a modest amount.

In the end it's only difference to an interest penalty on closing a term deposit early is that the provider has discretion over the size of the charge applied.

Perhaps you think it would have been better for Aviva to provide a totally inflexible product that only offered withdrawals at 5 and 10 years, but at no other stage?

darkpool

opinions4u wrote: »

Indeed they can.

But you were provided with details of a case when contractual terms around bank charges were not set aside.

And then started quoting legislation.

I haven't seen the Key Facts document, but if it says something like:

1) You can withdraw at any time, subject to an MVR if your withdrawal exceeds 5% of your investment

2) For a period of 6 months at 5 years, and any time after 10 years, we will not apply an MVR

It is clear and fair. No bonuses taken away. An MVR applied if you're not at one of the key withdrawal timeslots.

ehhhhhmmmm, perhaps i'm still not getting it. but what does a case where the contract wasn't set aside have anything to do with it? we both agree contracts can be set aside, it just so happens this contract was considered reasonable.

so you guess what the key facts document said and base your argument upon this imagined document? no need to say it, i just don't get it.

dunstonh

so you guess what the key facts document said and base your argument upon this imagined document? no need to say it, i just don't get it.

Just because you dont get it, doesnt make it wrong or bad. There have been a few pdfs posted which show the detail. If you are still confused after reading them then it is likely you will still be confused after reading any prospectus on a unit linked investment (tracker included).

opinions4u

dunstonh wrote: »

Just because you dont get it, doesnt make it wrong or bad. There have been a few pdfs posted which show the detail. If you are still confused after reading them then it is likely you will still be confused after reading any prospectus on a unit linked investment (tracker included).

I doubt the guy would understand the interest penalty on closing a typical term deposit early.

darkpool wrote: »

so you guess what the key facts document said and base your argument upon this imagined document? no need to say it, i just don't get it.

Just giving a generic example of how an MVR can work.

The OP was never too keen on providing us full details in this thread.

darkpool

dunstonh wrote: »

Just because you dont get it, doesnt make it wrong or bad. There have been a few pdfs posted which show the detail. If you are still confused after reading them then it is likely you will still be confused after reading any prospectus on a unit linked investment (tracker included).

i just don't get how someone can guess what a document said and use the imagined document in an argument. a judge would find that amusing

jem16

darkpool wrote: »

ehhhhhmmmm, perhaps i'm still not getting it. but what does a case where the contract wasn't set aside have anything to do with it?

You talked about this site being one which campaigns for consumer's rights. The bank charges reclaiming was one of the biggest campaigns on here. Martin led everyone to believe that the banks' charges were unfair and that it was a "done deal" that the courts would agree.

And yet it failed through the Supreme Court and OFT showed it had no teeth.

we both agree contracts can be set aside, it just so happens this contract was considered reasonable.

Yes just as a lot of other contracts will be deemed fair too.

darkpool wrote: »

i just don't get how someone can guess what a document said and use the imagined document in an argument. a judge would find that amusing

Based on the documents that have been provided on here, I think it was an informed guess. But of course you haven't actually read them have you?

By the way I have the Aviva KFD from February 2006 and it does indeed make it very clear.

darkpool

opinions4u wrote: »

I doubt the guy would understand the interest penalty on closing a typical term deposit early.

i believe i would understand the scenario you describe.

darkpool

jem16 wrote: »

You talked about this site being one which campaigns for consumer's rights. The bank charges reclaiming was one of the biggest campaigns on here. Martin led everyone to believe that the banks' charges were unfair and that it was a "done deal" that the courts would agree.

And yet it failed through the Supreme Court and OFT showed it had no teeth.

so using one failed case you assume every other unfair contract is enforcable? i don't see your logic.

opinions4u

darkpool wrote: »

so using one failed case you assume every other unfair contract is enforcable? i don't see your logic.

To be honest darkpool, you are beginning to sound like a complete idiot.

That is absolutely not what jem said.