Endowment update: payouts still falling

Mr_helpful

Maybe
So when you got the compensation why didnt you pay it off the mortgage? One thing I will agree with Edinvestor on is that its safe returns when you pay off tthe mortgage. You cant blame your problems of having a large portion of mortgage to pay off in a short time on the industry if you spend elsewhere the money that was compensated. The compensation has always been designed to put you back to where you were at the time of the claim. So if you had paid of the mortgage you should be where you would have been with a repayment mortgage. It is at this point that many people realise they have been paying for half the mortgage term and only paid off about a quarter of what they borrowed.
As regards traditional with profits it will be interesting to hear eds explanation of how a fund with a guaranted sum assured and bonuses that cannot be removed is not safer than one where your value can fall and rise by any amount.

defender_of_the_weak

A few thoughts on your recent postings MrH, how on earth do think that title is appropriate given the way you lambast some of the posters on here.

All this sweeping statement about fruadulent claims is utter nonsense as is the idea that mis-selling was only limited to crooked advisers. Most mis-selling took place because the advisers were too badly trained to understand what they were selling and believed the sales managers and broker reps who told them it would be 'guaranteed' and 'we have never failed to issue a terminal bonus'.

We win 94% of cases, they aint all liars

The outcome of the 'compensation culture' is that people are starting realise you don't have to shoulder the loss caused by poor financial advice.

toonfish

defender_of_the_weak wrote: »

We win 94% of cases, they aint all liars

what's the % against IFA's, or do you not pursue those like many of the other professional claimers?

Mr_helpful

To me the professional claimers are the worst. Just parasites making money jumping on the bandwagon of other peoples misery

MortgageMamma

Mr_helpful wrote: »

To me the professional claimers are the worst. Just parasites making money jumping on the bandwagon of other peoples misery

Funny I had a similar discussion along these lines with my compliance manager today, she actually laughed and said you cant be too careful as some people make a living out of complaining. Makes you wonder what the long term effect will be on the ecomony as we are rapidly becoming a compensation culture like the yanks who sue if their dentist causes a twinge, the consumer has so many rights and businesses hardly any!

dunstonh

The problem with posting here some times is that you say something and it gets taken to an extreme by other posters (from both sides).

There are dodgy advisers out there.
There are dodgy claims companies out there.
There are dodgy complaints going on.
There are dodgy people in every profession.

I can say that DOTW wouldnt get 94% against my cases or many other of the IFA firms I know well but then when the suitability report averages at least 20 pages, is pre-issued and a risk profiler is completed and signed, that covers the risks nicely (as well as allowing good advice to be given).

However, I know a couple of AXA tied advisers where DOTW could get virtually every investment sale they do classed as a mis-sale because they sell bonds every time (not even ISAs) and have the old fashioned "pick a number between 1 and 5" risk profile. So, if you pre-vet the complaints before submitting them and dont submit the ones where there is good evidence to support the advice, then your ratios are going to be higher. However, that also means the claims company is doing a better job as it wont be wasting anyone's time putting in complaints that arent going to win.

mayb_2

Mr Helpfull it would be helpful if you were to actually read my posts - I did pay the money that I was given in 'compensation' for the missale of my endowment mortgage to pay off part of my mortgage. I was given £17,000 and paid that all in to the account. The mortgage was for £60,000 so if you can turn £17,000 into £60,000 please can I have some of those magic beans?

This as you can see if you do the maths = over £40,000 left to pay. If I had kept the endowment the shortfall was projected to be £25,000 - nearly half of the total mortgage.

On the other hand I used the cash in value of my With Profits Policy - bought as a result of the churning of my pension (though I didn't understand that concept at the time) - to pay for my holiday (and yes it was a very, very nice holiday - have I mentioned that?). I would point out to you also, as you appear to believe I have bought these things consecutively having failed to learn anything from the experience - these were all sold to me within the same two year period. The mortgage 1992 - the pension shortly after - the with profits policy that replaced the pension in 1994. The salesmen would have known they were not such a good deal at this time as the evidence was there to see, but the buyer would not have been party to this information then. It is likely because of the periods of time over which these things were bought and sold that the same people were affected by both.

I doubt however, if anything posted here will alter the opinions of those who continue to deny that misselling and missmanagement occured on the scale that it did - like the denying of the holocaust it gives comfort to some and avoids feelings of referred guilt, if we would all agree that it just didn't happen.

mayb_2

"As regards traditional with profits it will be interesting to hear eds explanation of how a fund with a guaranted sum assured and bonuses that cannot be removed is not safer than one where your value can fall and rise by any amount."

The sum assured is less than the premiums that will be paid - that was just the life insurance part of it - must have been one of the most expensive life insurances in the world, the bonuses are of no set amount and not guaranteed, a year's bonus of say £24.00 that cannot be removed is hardly going to cut it is it. Of course the terminal bonus - the one no longer being paid by some companies and hardly worth being paid by others was the real basis upon which the high returns figures were originally quoted and no figures were guaranteed for these at outset. Some of us didn't know the difference - if someone promises you something you expect to get it. Not exactly a 'gentleman's agreement' or even 'my word is my bond' - that is where trust gets you - taken for a long and bumpy ride.

defender_of_the_weak

Weare one of the few companies that take on IFA complaints. Interestingly enough the initial uphold rate (ie the IFA accepts the mis-sale) is below 20%. Uphold rate at FOS is 69% when compared to mainstream banks/building societies/ direct sale of 73%

With regard to pre-vetting dunston we tried to do that when we started the business inorder to be fair to both the consumer and the company/IFA. All we got back were requests for handlinng fees running to hundreds of pounds and unacceptable delays, so we then just went with what we could see from the clients paperwork and their circumstances. I found out later this was a deliberate ploy by the insurance companies to put endowment complaint companies out of business.

Mr H you obviously cannot see that some people do not have a knowledge and understanding to deal with financial issues and need someone to do it for them. Oh sorry, thats how you make a living arranging mortgages

and its Mr Parasite please

toonfish

defender_of_the_weak wrote: »

Weare one of the few companies that take on IFA complaints. Interestingly enough the initial uphold rate (ie the IFA accepts the mis-sale) is below 20%. Uphold rate at FOS is 69% when compared to mainstream banks/building societies/ direct sale of 73%

I am astonished by your success rate, but where does the 94% come into it?