Aviva not notified us of reattribution - lost our rights

mlallen

Hi guys

This is quite an intriguing one!

We have recently been looking at taking out a new fixed rate deal and was in the process of assessing the current performance of our endowment as part of this - to see how we need to further restructure our interest-only and capital replayment elements. On looking at our previous correspondence we noticed that Aviva had not sent us anything since June 2008 (last letter sent as Norwich Union) - oversight by us but still. I understand that they have a legal obligation to send us a statement every year as per FSA guidelines.

We have recently complained to Aviva for the missing correspondence and statements and have been sent a letter apologising and offering us £50 quid and that they will send us the missing statements (no mention of other important correspondence as we requested - apparently these are not readily available?). They had been sending everything to our old address form 2008 - now, even though we moved to our current property in 2003. We were even receiving statements and correspondence from this date up until 2008. We were also even successful in obtaining compensation from Norwich Union in 2007 for miss-selling (through the previous ownership of Commercial Union) using the new address - so no suggestion that we did not inform them. I think this is all something to do with the transfer of ownership fro NU to Aviva circa 2008/9 - although we haven't been told this.

The interesting part of this is that through my own initiative, I have been looking at this forum and come across (by chance) the reference to reattribution (something I never heard of previously). I looked into this and find it appalling that they have not mentioned a word about this - not including the fact that we have lost our rights to vote on this and the financial implications. £50, they must be having a giraffe!

Would be pleased to get some feedback as to whether anybody else has experienced similar or can add some advice (we have not yet told them that we know about the reattribution even though they have deliberately covered this up themselves). We were planning to give them a call tomorrow.

What do you think guys?

Many thanks

mlallen

Sorry - not eluded to this in the previous post but this is an Endowment Policy

Thrugelmir

Why didn't you realise the fact earlier?

To win a case you'll need a convincing answer.

mlallen

Thanks for prompt reply.

We are currently in a fixed rate deal and this comes to an end at end of May 12 so we had no reason to check earlier. We always restructure prior to setting up a new mortgage deal (interest v repayment as part of this). However, this does not excuse the fact that they have not sent any correspondence, any statements, any voting rights, anything! This fault is of their doing not ours but would welcome some constructive advice.

Thrugelmir

mlallen wrote: »

Thanks for prompt reply.

We are currently in a fixed rate deal and this comes to an end at end of May 12 so we had no reason to check earlier. We always restructure prior to setting up a new mortgage deal (interest v repayment as part of this). However, this does not excuse the fact that they have not sent any correspondence, any statements, any voting rights, anything! This fault is of their doing not ours but would welcome some constructive advice.

You've been offered £50 for inconvenience which is reasonable. As you say you had no need to check in which case you'll find it hard to claim for any financial loss.

Unfortunately part of the blame would be apportioned to you. As a reasonable expectation could be made that you should spring clean your finances at least once a year.

mlallen

Reasonable I think if we had received the correspondence? We were unknowlingly aware of the reattribution. Why would we?

Again, I reitterate that they have failed to provide the information to us as a policyholder - they have got their records wrong not us. I'm strong minded and don't feel that I should just sit back and take it 'so to speak'.

Granted that a 'spring clean' of my finances would not go amiss, which we do (mortgage wise) every mortgage deal. But essentially I don't feel we have done anything wrong?

Thrugelmir

mlallen wrote: »

Reasonable I think if we had received the correspondence? We were unknowlingly aware of the reattribution. Why would we?

Again, I reitterate that they have failed to provide the information to us as a policyholder - they have got their records wrong not us. I'm strong minded and don't feel that I should just sit back and take it 'so to speak'.

Granted that a 'spring clean' of my finances would not go amiss, which we do (mortgage wise) every mortgage deal. But essentially I don't feel we have done anything wrong?

I'm merely expressing a personal opinion. By all means complain.

What compensation are you expecting to receive?

mlallen

Thank you 'Thrugelmir'.

I feel this forum is great to inform and to advise and the knowledge that is available to the many people who use this site helpful to others in a similar position.

Mine is quite specific and thank you for responses. Would be great to get responses from someone who has experienced the same or similar, or is aware of similar.

Ta.

DVardysShadow

No experience, knew nothing about this and googled a little bit.

As I understand it, there was never a vote as such, it was an election - essentially a choice. The distinction is important. In the case of a vote, this would be a block vote by all policy holders which would change policies for all policyholders or for none. An election or choice means that each policy holder would make an individual choice.

If it was a vote, your vote probably would not change the outcome. As it was an election, you have had your rights taken from you. At this stage, I would be writing letters and I believe that if the terms of their reattribution offer preclude a later choice, you should be compensated for their maladministration, if the default choice applied to your policy was not the choice you would have taken.

mlallen

Thanks 'DVardysShadow'.

It was indeed an election so indidual to each and every policyholder, which we have lost out to as you say their maladministration (what a word!).

From researching the t'internet I've discovered that almost 90% of all policyholders took the offer (83.5% to be exact), i.e. voted 'Yes'. We are therefore part of very small minority who either voted 'No' or didn't return a vote.

Unbeknowing to us we were the latter, so have effectively waivered our rights.

There was an independent Policyholder Advocate set up for the reattribution - should I contact them or stick with the FOS?

DVardysShadow

mlallen wrote: »

Unbeknowing to us we were the latter, so have effectively waivered our rights.

There was an independent Policyholder Advocate set up for the reattribution - should I contact them or stick with the FOS?

You have not waivered your rights, you've been denied them.

My thought is to exhaust Policyholders's advocate processes. The answer will almost certainly be that you did not exercise a choice, so the outcome was correct - but do challenge them on Aviva's failure to address correspondence to you. And exhaust Aviva's own processes before taking the matter to the FOS.

With the FOS, your case is not that you have lost out because you were denied reattribution - it is that Aviva's maladministration of your address caused you to lose out. The difference is subtle, but that is how I would play it.