Claims pre 29th April 1988

dunstonh

Dunstonh has indicated in his post that although risky, a few people have succeeded by taking the legal route. They must have retained enough information to prove the financial advisor had done wrong and that they were mis-sold.

No actual successes in the courts are known of with an actual claim on mis-selling. A few, including a high profile one of a forum member here, attacked it from a different way (on post 1988 cases) and had success but even that method would no longer result in success now.

In response to Dunstonh who seems a little disgruntled about my extremely passive comment about your advisor not wishing to uphold your complaint. I know in most businesses, people are told to admit to nothing. I can only assume that financial advisors have a similar unwritten rule.

As a new forum member you wont be aware of it by I have helped a number of people who have gone on to get successful redress payments. I stand to lose nothing on anyone claiming on a mis-sale unless they are claiming against me. As I never sold endowments as an IFA, I have no such liability. Best advice rules mean that where an inappropriate product exists and is identified, an adviser is meant to recommend the best course of action.

No win, no fee companies cherry pick the easier cases and many make you buy an insurance policy to cover their charges.

Ps. I had to google "caveat emptor". Seems like it's a little warning often used in the financial world.

The term covers all retail areas. In most countries, it still applies to financial services but no longer in the UK in regulated areas. Pre 1988, it did apply. It means buyer beware.

EdInvestor

dunstonh wrote:

A few, including a high profile one of a forum member here, attacked it from a different way (on post 1988 cases) and had success

This was MSE poster Vinno's case:

Details here

You may like to seearch this forum for posts by Vinno, who's a very helpful chap

Defender of the Weak is another person whose advice is worth asking.

defender_of_the_weak

Your problem is still the time limit. The original time barring challenges were based on the application of a three year rule, based on when you might reasonably have become aware. setting aside the need to prove mis-selling if you take this to a civil court the IFA will certainly challenge any jurisdiction under the 15 year long stop rule. On the balance of probability the judge would potentially throw the case out straight away without consideration.

Best of luck if you try it... but I am not optimistic