3 Failed Endowment Mis-selling Claims - Help Needed!!!

silverstone-sue

This is my first entry on a chat forum so be gentle with me please!!

Fired up by all the successes from mis-selling claims I started my own mission last year. How disappointing - three rejection letters! I now need advice as to whether there is any scope to pursue any of these claims further.
The basic details are as follows:-

1. EAGLE STAR (now Zurich)
Policy commenced April 1988. Finishes 2013. Although I still have the policy has not been used for mortgage purposes since 1994. Supposed to make £32,000 but projected shortfall of over £17,000!! High risk letter in 2001 so time-barred (shows it was a hopeless investment!)

2. SCOTTISH AMICABLE (now Prudential)
Policy commenced 1990. Finishes 2015. Although I still have the policy has not been used for mortgage purposes since 1994. Supposed to make £32,000 but projected shortfall of around £6,000. Investigation agreed that a repayment mortgage would have been more suitable given our attitude to risk. However calculations suggest that we are better of than we would have been with a repayment mortgage (hard to believe!)
The workings are
a) in comparing to an equivalent repayment mortgage and in view that we changed to a repayment method in 1994, £1651.67 is due
b) Premiums paid since 1994 refunded and interest added £8439.14
c) Step a + step b -surrender value £1,651.67 + £8,439.14 - £11,755.14 = £0

Can anyone tell me if this makes sense and is a valid argument??!!

3. STANDARD LIFE
This was taken out to support an interest only loan on a business premise in 1993 and arranged by LLoyds. Their argument (which is a good one but is it legal?) is that we signed a document to say that we bought the product without any advice or recommendation as to its suitability. I guess they must have known what might happen in the future!

None of these seems too hopeful but someone out there might have a spark of information to relight my battle!

Many thanks xxx

housemice

silverstone-sue wrote:

2. SCOTTISH AMICABLE (now Prudential)
Policy commenced 1990. Finishes 2015. Although I still have the policy has not been used for mortgage purposes since 1994. Supposed to make £32,000 but projected shortfall of around £6,000. Investigation agreed that a repayment mortgage would have been more suitable given our attitude to risk. However calculations suggest that we are better of than we would have been with a repayment mortgage (hard to believe!)
The workings are
a) in comparing to an equivalent repayment mortgage and in view that we changed to a repayment method in 1994, £1651.67 is due
b) Premiums paid since 1994 refunded and interest added £8439.14
c) Step a + step b -surrender value £1,651.67 + £8,439.14 - £11,755.14 = £0

Can anyone tell me if this makes sense and is a valid argument??!!

Yes, this is valid, and sounds correct from the info you have given - they have upheld your complaint, but the calculation made shows that you have suffered no loss. Most companies use the same method of calculating compensation, which has been agreed with the FSA.

3. STANDARD LIFE
This was taken out to support an interest only loan on a business premise in 1993 and arranged by LLoyds. Their argument (which is a good one but is it legal?) is that we signed a document to say that we bought the product without any advice or recommendation as to its suitability. I guess they must have known what might happen in the future!

This is legal - you can ask for a copy of the form that you signed if you like, to check what it says. But basically, as you are probably aware, when this policy was sold to you you signed a form saying that you did not require any financial advice when taking the plan. Therefore, as far as it appears, no advice was given to you about this policy when it was sold. Consequently you cannot really complain about "mis-selling" - mis-selling can only take place if you are misled by advice given to you at the point of sale.

Hope this helps.

dunstonh

All three seem valid and the Scot Am doesnt surprise me as their endowments are quite good and most are on track for surplus.

silverstone-sue

Thanks for responding - never mind - much as I thought!!

andyrules

3. STANDARD LIFE
This was taken out to support an interest only loan on a business premise in 1993 and arranged by LLoyds. Their argument (which is a good one but is it legal?) is that we signed a document to say that we bought the product without any advice or recommendation as to its suitability. I guess they must have known what might happen in the future!

Yup, we suffered this too with SL. As we already had SL policies sold to us through Halifax and for the same loan, when we extended our loan we went through the same procedure, but with the addition of signing that document. There was no indication of things to come, and foolishly thought that we were following up advice given previously from world's biggest BS.

I totally agree with you - they KNEW what was about to happen and covered their backs. Would be nice if someone eventually takes them to court for deception or something and wins.