Endowment maturity

ktel1

Hi All

I have an endowment which is pre-regulation (April 1987) and is due to mature next month. I have received a letter from the endowment holder, Phoenix Life, that states an estimated maturity value and as I have known for some time, is due to have a shortfall of some £8,000 over the amount it was initially set up to pay off and extremely short of the amounts I was expecting when sold this but I know that as this is pre-reg there is little I can do on the mis-selling side.

However, the letter sent includes a claim form that I am expected to sign that has a statement in that says " I declare that Phoenix Life is discharged of all liability under the plan subject to the company making payment in accordance with my instructions"

I believe that in signing this, I have no further claim against them in the future. I appreciate that due to its pre-reg age I cannot make a claim for mis-selling and is probably time barred anyway but what if things were to change in the future? If I sign this, are my chances of any comeback absolutely zero?

I want to know whether I can refuse to sign this and still get my payment? Am I under any obligation whereby they can refuse to pay out?

I have not had an endowment run to completion and obviously not sure of what I cam/cannot do, so any advice would be appreciated.
I may have left out crucial info so please let me know if you need more to understand my situation.

Many thanks

COLOURBOUNCE

I too have never had a policy mature. It may be that this is standard wording for all investment types. It may be that they are expecting some flack in the future as the FSA have made such a hash of the whole sorry mess. What they should do is tell you how much you are owed and where do you want it sent. I fear until you sign, this will not happen.

ktel1

I feel the same way, however, I am entitled to this money and should not be expected to be forced into getting it only by signing a caveat.

I also want to know whether they will accept a photocopy of the original policy document as this may be all I have? When I asked them a few years ago about sending me copies of all correspondence they had, they told me that as they took over this from Royal Life, documents past a certain age were destroyed so did not have anything they could send me.

opinions4u

Do you want the money now or not?

You've said you realise you can't complain. Are you really expecting to wake up in 15 years time and get a cheque for another £8,000 off them?

Sign the form. Provide whatever ID they need. Collect what's due and get on with life.

kingstreet

You are never going to have a mis-selling claim against Phoenix, so you can safely give them their discharge.

Any mis-selling claim would be against the firm which sold you the policy, not the firm which bought the contract from the original insurer.

COLOURBOUNCE

That is what they want him to do, but is that what he has to do ? I think that was the question. Also, if there is no chance of some sort of action in the future, why are they so keen to get this finalised in such a way. No one saw miss selling coming until the wheels came off.

dunstonh

I believe that in signing this, I have no further claim against them in the future. I appreciate that due to its pre-reg age I cannot make a claim for mis-selling and is probably time barred anyway but what if things were to change in the future? If I sign this, are my chances of any comeback absolutely zero?

You are mixing up what the liability is for. It is in relation to the policy conditions. Not some hypothetical sales issue.

I appreciate that due to its pre-reg age I cannot make a claim for mis-selling and is probably time barred anyway but what if things were to change in the future? If I sign this, are my chances of any comeback absolutely zero?

Chances are zero anyway as the provider has no liability on the sale of the product unless it is one of their agents. The fact you are barred due to pre-regulation means it was not one of their agents. So the rules are never gone to change on that. It would require an act of parliament changing the law and back dating it 25 years. It just isnt going to happen. Getitng someone else to take the blame of another is not how English law works and retrospective law changes of 25 years would be unheard of. Lets change the speed restriction in your street to 20 and prosecute all those that drove down it at 30mph for the last 25 years. That is and equivalent of what you would be asking for

I want to know whether I can refuse to sign this and still get my payment? Am I under any obligation whereby they can refuse to pay out?

if you refuse, they dont have to pay out.

why are they so keen to get this finalised in such a way.

Because the policy is maturing and they want to pay the proceeds out. They dont want it hanging around.

Freecall

dunstonh wrote: »

You are mixing up what the liability is for. It is in relation to the policy conditions. Not some hypothetical sales issue.



Chances are zero anyway as the provider has no liability on the sale of the product unless it is one of their agents. The fact you are barred due to pre-regulation means it was not one of their agents. So the rules are never gone to change on that. It would require an act of parliament changing the law and back dating it 25 years. It just isnt going to happen. Getitng someone else to take the blame of another is not how English law works and retrospective law changes of 25 years would be unheard of. Lets change the speed restriction in your street to 20 and prosecute all those that drove down it at 30mph for the last 25 years. That is and equivalent of what you would be asking for


if you refuse, they dont have to pay out.


Because the policy is maturing and they want to pay the proceeds out. They dont want it hanging around.

This seems a bit of a harsh reply donstonh.

There is a contractual relationship in place and both parties are required to fulfill their obligations under that contract.

For one party to require that something additional must now be done before it fulfills its obligations is just plain wrong.

This is classic big guy holding all the cards forcing small guy to do what they say.......or else!

dunstonh

For one party to require that something additional must now be done before it fulfills its obligations is just plain wrong.

would it help if I was to say that they normally request this where the policy document is not being returned and the request is to cover them should the policy document turn up later and a claim is attempted to be made?

This is classic big guy holding all the cards forcing small guy to do what they say.......or else!

I dont see it like that. I see it as someone mixing up what it being asked for and the company asking for something because a document is not being returned.

Freecall

dunstonh wrote: »

would it help if I was to say that they normally request this where the policy document is not being returned and the request is to cover them should the policy document turn up later and a claim is attempted to be made?



I dont see it like that. I see it as someone mixing up what it being asked for and the company asking for something because a document is not being returned.

According to the OP, this is not related to the availability of documents.....

"However, the letter sent includes a claim form that I am expected to sign that has a statement in that says " I declare that Phoenix Life is discharged of all liability under the plan subject to the company making payment in accordance with my instructions"

I think that Phoenix Life is just being a bit over zealous in trying to protect its interests and if it was me I would just sign as a matter of expediency.

It does not change the principle though. If I owed you money for a service provided and then said that I would only pay you if you signed some document I produced (however innocuous), I doubt that you would be particularly happy.