Taking a claim for mis-selling through Court

danzily

I too am considering taking the Norwich union to the small claims court due to a shortfall on my two endowments. I have the original documentation which quotes "the policy is designed to repay your mortgage AND provide a tax free cash lump sum". I also have their letter which states "this policy will repay your mortgage AND provide 11,502 tax free lump sum. I also have a letter from the Norwich Union accepting they gave "an unfair expectation about the amount of benefits the policy might yield". However, they then insulted me by offering only 300 quid! I was considering applying for the total shortfall of 2500/3000 quid, with additional claim for compensation for the stress caused and the time taken to fight my claim. Can anyone give me any advice as to whether I have a chance of winning based on the information above.

EdInvestor

Gosh yes.:) Go for it.

dunstonh

I have the original documentation which quotes "the policy is designed to repay your mortgage AND provide a tax free cash lump sum".

Nothing wrong with that.

I also have their letter which states "this policy will repay your mortgage AND provide 11,502 tax free lump sum.

If there are no provisos added to that such as "providing z% p.a. return is achieved", then that looks like strong evidence in your favour.

. I also have a letter from the Norwich Union accepting they gave "an unfair expectation about the amount of benefits the policy might yield".

Problem is that the FSA set the projection rates. Not the company. Until fairly recently, companies were not allowed to deviate from those.

However, they then insulted me by offering only 300 quid

The calculation shows that you are only £300 worse off then. Not £2500/£3000. A potential shortfall is not an actual shortfall until maturity. Switching to repayment mortgage now and paying the surrender value and the £300 into the mortgage would put you in the same position you would have been had you had a repayment mortgage. That is what the complaint is about and they are putting you in the position you would have been.

I was considering applying for the total shortfall of 2500/3000 quid

Almost certainly will be thrown out. You cannot apply for claim on a potential figure that may or may not happen and is subject to investment returns.

with additional claim for compensation for the stress caused and the time taken to fight my claim.

Unlikely to succeed. Stress would be minimal and NU have acted in accordance with rule RU89. The complaints process requires very little work on your part and apart from the delay it isnt stressful. A pain in the backside but not stressful.

Can anyone give me any advice as to whether I have a chance of winning based on the information above.

Do you think you an persuade a judge that NU are being unreasonable in their offer to put you back in the position you would have been if you had you gone with a repayment mortgage (which is the basis of your complaint). Remember you have suffered nothing financially as a result of this so going to court to get more than you are entitled to is always a risk.

EdInvestor

dunstonh wrote: »

Do you think you can persuade a judge that NU are being unreasonable in their offer to put you back in the position you would have been if you had you gone with a repayment mortgage

This is well below their original promise according to the OP's documentation, so is not really a relevant offer.

dunstonh

EdInvestor wrote: »

This is well below their original promise according to the OP's documentation, so is not really a relevant offer.

True. But I have seen wording to a similar effect in documentation that comes with a risk warning in the next sentence or same paragraph that puts it in context. If those warnings are there, and I am assuming they are, then the case isnt very strong. If the warnings arent there then there is a much stronger case.

danzily

dunstonh wrote: »

Nothing wrong with that.



If there are no provisos added to that such as "providing z% p.a. return is achieved", then that looks like strong evidence in your favour.



Problem is that the FSA set the projection rates. Not the company. Until fairly recently, companies were not allowed to deviate from those.



The calculation shows that you are only £300 worse off then. Not £2500/£3000. A potential shortfall is not an actual shortfall until maturity. Switching to repayment mortgage now and paying the surrender value and the £300 into the mortgage would put you in the same position you would have been had you had a repayment mortgage. That is what the complaint is about and they are putting you in the position you would have been.



Almost certainly will be thrown out. You cannot apply for claim on a potential figure that may or may not happen and is subject to investment returns.



Unlikely to succeed. Stress would be minimal and NU have acted in accordance with rule RU89. The complaints process requires very little work on your part and apart from the delay it isnt stressful. A pain in the backside but not stressful.



Do you think you an persuade a judge that NU are being unreasonable in their offer to put you back in the position you would have been if you had you gone with a repayment mortgage (which is the basis of your complaint). Remember you have suffered nothing financially as a result of this so going to court to get more than you are entitled to is always a risk.

Why do you say there is nothing wrong with the NU promotional literature which states
"I have the original documentation which quotes "the policy is designed to repay your mortgage AND provide a tax free cash lump sum".
I was going to court to claim that this was in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act because the product has not done what it was designed to do and therefore was not fit for purpose.

dunstonh

Why do you say there is nothing wrong with the NU promotional literature which states
"I have the original documentation which quotes "the policy is designed to repay your mortgage AND provide a tax free cash lump sum".

That is what it is designed to do. It may not achieve it but it doesnt say it guarantees to do it.

I was going to court to claim that this was in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act because the product has not done what it was designed to do and therefore was not fit for purpose.

It was fit for purpose at point of sale albeit being obsolete nowadays. A lot of stuff we bought in the 80s would be unfit for purpose now in many retail areas as time moves on. You may find the court time bars you as well given the length of time you have taken to take action.

danzily

The exact wording on my letter from the Norwich Union states -
"Both policies guarantee to repay your mortgage in the vent of either of your deaths during the morgage term, however, the Minimum Cost Endowment Mortgage also repays the mortgage at maturity and privides a tax free cash lump sum being the bonuses accrued under the policy. On current bonus rates this would amount to £11502."
You commented that "If there are no provisos added to that such as "providing z% p.a. return is achieved", then that looks like strong evidence in your favour".
Do you consider the paragraph in my letter a proviso?
I now have a more or less definitive figure for the total shortfall on both policies which totals £1600. So as soon as I get the final payment through and have a definite figure can I then claim through the small claims court?
I really appreciate your honesty and help in this.

dunstonh

Do you consider the paragraph in my letter a proviso?

It certainly doesnt mention any potential for shortfall or that it may not hit target or will only hit target if x% p.a. is achieved.

If there is no warnings elsewhere then I would say you have a stronger case. A paragraph by itself could have that as the objective but another paragraph listing the warnings. If there are no warnings on the document then there is little protection for NU to use.

Dan_1976

Good luck lifestore, let us know the outcome.