AVIVA's MVR ate my profit

jem16

2sides2everystory wrote: »

It is a beautiful Saturday afternoon on an Easter weekend.

Until approximately an hour ago it was a dull, grey and wet Saturday afternoon.

but can't because this vulnerable thread is an extension of your manhood ?

Well that should prove interesting but fortunately I don't suffer from those male inadequacies.

But hey ho if it works for you, don't let me put you off.

jem16

ellenGB wrote: »

The FO wrote to AVIVA and AVIVA then called me to note that due to an issue at the helpline, I had been given incorrect information. My MVR was therefore not £900 plus but £20 and might be £0 on May 5th.

Another little misunderstanding I suppose.

From your fully quoted, as yet to be removed, post.

ellenGB wrote: »

Outcome (provisional):

AVIVA rang in response to my complaint to the FO. Current MVR for my bond is £20. They admitted that it was £900 when I rang them. They reviewed and unless something drastic happens, it may reduce further by the time the guarantee kicks in early May. Have no idea why the major change but I'm very happy today.

The more you edit Post 1 and the more you remove posts and try to insinuate that we have selectively quoted you, the more you convince everybody that we were correct.

To be honest your 1st post is now a work of pure fiction.

jamesd

jem16, all, it seems sensible to cease discussion of this.

Her original first post was "I've had a inflation-guaranteed with profits bond with Aviva for five years so no more charges for cashing in. However, they will be applying a market value reduction (MVR) of about £1000, which is pretty much the increase in value of the bond during the past five years. Given the stock market isn't doing badly and AVIVA is not exactly close to bankrupcy, I am being severely punished for a poor fund manager. (The current value is about £1000 more than the original amount I put in). The T & Cs never clarified how much a MVR might be. Last year, the MVR was about £2000.

The amount seems unreasonable, out of proportion and quite frankly unfair. I've complained to the Financial Ombudsman, but there's little she can do except emphasize.

Anyone know if there's something I can do except cry? FTSE today is well over 6000"

That correctly reported what she had been told, even though it turned out to be wrong. I don't see any reason at all to dispute her assertion that Aviva contacted her to tell her that she'd been given the wrong MVR in that original contact. Assuming nothing other than she reported what she was told at the various times, the root cause of the problem here is Aviva providing incorrect information in the original call.

While she may have had some misunderstandings, that's not what went wrong. I don't personally think that her posts were read and understood very well by a number of posters here, which at times seemed to cause avoidable friction and upset. Too many replies seemed to assume she was less capable than she really seems to be.

ellenGB, glad it seems to be largely sorted out now.

jem16

jamesd wrote: »

jem16, all, it seems sensible to cease discussion of this.

Totally agree.

Assuming nothing other than she reported what she was told at the various times, the root cause of the problem here is Aviva providing incorrect information in the original call.

Sorry james but I have to disagree with you here.

EllenGB herself said on the 21st that she had no idea why Aviva had made this change to the MVR. Now on the 23rd she suddenly remembers that it was down to incorrect information being given in the original call - very convenient.

I doubt it is anything to do with Aviva and incorrect information.

It has been an interesting fairy tale and one which I will now leave well alone.

ellenGB

Jem, I didn't 'suddenly remember' on the 23rd. I began this thread asking for information and advice. As the time progressed, I learnt and obtained information. I passed this on and the first post is now a summary of the whole thread, or rather my posts. A summary. I learnt after the start of the thread that the helpline gave me incorrect information. I don't know why AVIVA changed the MVR in what was a period of about three days. I just know that they did. I see nothing problematic in this, either on AVIVA's side re the reduction, or on my side. You've made this very personal. You dismiss it as a fairy tale, supporting the view that you regard me as dishonest. And more. Hence my actions today. Incidentally, you also query AVIVA. You don't have the documents, you haven't spoken to the individual who gave me the information. You are quick to judge.

I did not lie. I have no evidence that the man from AVIVA lied to me. Neither have you.

browniej

ellenGB wrote: »

Jem, I didn't 'suddenly remember' on the 23rd.

Please explain then why on the 21st you said this;

ellenGB wrote: »

Outcome (provisional):

AVIVA rang in response to my complaint to the FO. Current MVR for my bond is £20. They admitted that it was £900 when I rang them. They reviewed and unless something drastic happens, it may reduce further by the time the guarantee kicks in early May. Have no idea why the major change but I'm very happy today.

and then on the 23rd in your edited first post you said;

ellenGB wrote: »

The FO wrote to AVIVA and AVIVA then called me to note that due to an issue at the helpline, I had been given incorrect information. My MVR was therefore not £900 plus but £20 and might be £0 on May 5th.

Those two statements contradict one another.

I don't know why AVIVA changed the MVR in what was a period of about three days. I just know that they did.

Again that contradicts what you said in your edited post.

magpiecottage

ellenGB wrote: »

I did not lie.

At least two of the posts you have deleted said you were leaving this thread and you haven't.

Okay I can understand the temptation to come back and defend yourself but removing lots of posts is hardly going to persuade an impartial observer that you are providing a plausible testimony.

magpiecottage

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Look at this goobledegook http://www.aviva.co.uk/adviser/product-literature/view-document.cgi?f=gn16214c.pdf

Note the word "adviser" in that web address. The document is in a technical area of Aviva's website intended for qualified advisers.

Of course they will understand it in more detail - a bit like a doctor will be able to better understand how, say, paracetamol works than the rest of us. All I need to know is that when I should take it and how much.

That is what the Key Features document does.

ellenGB

BrownieJ, I cannot see the contradiction and you haven't shown me which bits contradicts what. I see the same explanation using words in a different order but it's as described in post 1.

Magpiecottage, I can cope with a lot but not allegations that I am a dishonest person. I really value honesty. It's my achilles heel. I will therefore repeat that I have not been dishonest re the MVR story. I already noted several times that my key features does not mention MVRs.

I have no plans to respond further unless someone defames me, i.e. claims that I am a liar, etc. And then, the response will be limited to a challenge to the allegation only.

magpiecottage

jem16 wrote: »

If the FOS thought you had a case to answer they would have dealt with it themself. They would not have passed it back to Aviva.

Assuming the call was actually made they would either say it was a commercial decision and/or a performance issue and therefore ouside their jurisdiction or send a standard letter to Aviva saying that they had received a complaint and that if they were not already onto it Aviva had 8 weeks from the date of the letter to respond directly to the complainant.

Most of my clients have never seen these letters but I have seen quite a few of them and I would expect Aviva to have as well.

At that point, Aviva would either identify it was a commercial decision or performance issue or, more likely, not bother to even consider that and refer it to the IFA - who would have to respond to it.

But the point is that FOS will not have made a decision or given any indication to Aviva at this stage. They never do unless the firm has had an opportunity to respond.