Taking a claim for mis-selling through Court

Lifestore

I wrote to the Nationwide complaining about my Standard Life endowment policy back in 2003. They rejected my claim and I did not appeal to the ombudsman within 6 months. My plan has just matured with a £4900 shortfall, so I have decided to take out a claim through the small claims court. Has anyone any assistance or experience with the proceedure as I am sure they will try to defend the claim.

Thanks:A

toonfish

what is the basis of the complaint? For what it's worth I don't think you have any chance, as you failed to go through the ombudsman process.

dunstonh

There are no known successes with court action other then a few which have won on a technicality or unrelated issue.

What would be your legal reason for claiming? (in other words what laws did the Nationwide break in selling you the endowment?)

Lifestore

My basis for a claim is mis-selling on the basis that the no reference was made to risk and the projection was headed "Repaying your mortgage in 18 years"

dunstonh

And the advising firm will present to the court illustrations and key feature documents which highlight the risk warnings. They will also present the cancellation rights that were issued after the sale along with another copy of the illustration that was sent with it which clearly states "you could get back more or less than this", "these figures are not guaranteed" etc.

These documents carry virtually no weight with the FOS but they would be used as evidence in a court who would consider them. So, plenty or references to the risk.

This is why you see very few cases go to court and even fewer win.

defender_of_the_weak

Go to court and ignore the posters who tell you not to. There is a complete load of nonsense posted about how courts would view such a case. A risk warning such as 'the value may be more or less than this' is not sufficient to detract from all the verbal information provided during the sale.

The ombudsman is irrelevent to what a court may or may not think.

dunstonh

So, why do none of the ambulance chasers tell people to go to court? Why arent we seeing adverts telling you to do it? Why arent solicitors out there getting people to do it? Why arent we seeing any internet articles evidencing it (apart from Vinno who won on a different tack)?

With the FOS the advising firm has to prove it wasnt mis-sold. With the court you have to prove it was mis-sold. What evidence do you have to show you were mis-sold that would overcome the evidence that the provider will give that does show risk warnings were disclosed?

Court is an option but it is not a risk free option as you could end up paying costs if you lose. You should only go into it if you have a good chance of winning and/or the funds available to cover costs should you lose

Mr_helpful

I would say go for it and post here after the outcome. We would all be interested to see the outcome.

defender_of_the_weak

Just to correct some of the errors posted previously

The shortfall is 4,900 therefore it is small claims court and the OP would not be liable for costs

Nationwide cannot simply say 'he got an illustration and book and knew what he was doing' . They have to show that the policy was not misrepresented at point of sale. We frequently advise people over court action but many people find it scarey. Anything over 5,000 is met with an immediate demand for costs to be filed, normally in excess of 10,000 and this has proved enough to scare off everyone with a claim above this amount. We currently have 3 cases filed and awaiting dates but they are all small claims and no precedent will be set and will be unlikely to be done in the near future

dwsjarcmcd

Don't claim to know the answer but from a pragmatic point of view would the fact that the OP didn't complete the process with the FOS i.e. they didn't appeal the original decision, not have a negative bearing on the outcome?

mystic_trev

Tend to agree that this is probably a no brainer. However you may as well try your luck in the Small claims court and let us know the result.