Endowment update: payouts still falling

Mr_helpful

mayb wrote: »

So Mrhelpfull how can you contend that the missales of the past - where far less legislation was in place to prevent the above misselling examples- never happened and it is the compensation culture that is causing it to look as if it did? You really, really can't have it both ways.

As I said before there is all sorts of protection out there for any other type of sale but when it comes to financial ones you are on your own.

I have never said miss selling didnt take place. I have just said no amount of regulation will stop it. However do you think the claims would have been so high if there was no monetary redress but say the firm just made up the amount on maturity if you kept it that long? Do you think there would be the claims vultures if they were not going to get paid. If the endowments were on target there would be very few claims if any yet that would not affect the number that had been miss sold.
Regulation has actually opened up the opportunity for miss sale not closed it. Yes the procedures are more strict and take longer but they also involve more information and choice which can easily be exploited as it creates confusion.Take any good course on NLP or covert hypnosis and you will soon learn what can go on.
So with a normal purchase you have 6 yrs cover. Not much compared to the financial services is it where yes claims have gone back before 1988.
You keep going on about ignorance and people giving you full information but ignorance of the law is no excuse is it and how often do youi get full information of the laws of this land.

Addiscomber

EdInvestor wrote: »

Buy the current edition of Money Management from which the figures were taken.The magazine should have the full list.

Dragging this back to the original purpose of the thread, yet again, the magazine costs over £6 and was sealed so no sneak looking in the newsagent , and would be a waste of money for a lot of people. My husband managed to look at one in the local library today and discovered that Zurich, presumably amongst others, is not in the list/chart. Inclusion was voluntary so presumably choosing not to be included speaks volumes. Still can't decide what to do with the wretched thing because we can't find anything out :mad:

EdInvestor

Have you tried ringing them up and asking how much TB they are paying?

BTW you do have a With profits policy, do you? Most Zurich policies were unit-linked IIRC.

Addiscomber

It was originally an Eagle Star low cost endowment, was taken over by Zurich and is now called the Conventional With Profits 90:10 fund.

DH is the only one on the policy. He is on leave next week so I will get him to ring them and ask. I will probably start a new thread then with the figures as we got a surrender value from them about 2 weeks ago.

mayb_2

"I have never said miss selling didnt take place" - have you been hypnotised Mrhelpful?

"Do you think there would be the claims vultures if they were not going to get paid." They only get paid if they win the case surely - they can't win the case if there is a signature - ask Vinno 65.

"If the endowments were on target there would be very few claims if any yet that would not affect the number that had been miss sold."

When you say things like that I really wonder if you are on the same planet as me. If the endowments were on target we would never have discovered the fact that they were linked to the stock market would we? Would not have woken up one day with a letter on the mat saying unfortunately this is not going to pay your mortgage. The misselling is not about the fact that they were endowments, it was about the fact that people did not know what that meant and that there was an inherent risk in buying one. And also that nobody told you until the damage was done and the FSA forced the companies to come clean with the customers with their projections and red and orange letters. I don't have a problem with the idea of the firm making up the money at the end of the term - that would not be a missale because you would be getting what you were sold.

"Regulation has actually opened up the opportunity for miss sale not closed it" No amount of explanantion can make that statement make sense. The choices have not been created by regulations - the regulations created the need for you to explain why you would recommend a person makes this or that choice. The range of products would exist with or without regulations.

Getting back to the original subject - if endowment pay outs continue to fall will those people whose mortgages may have been just about on track but who now find themselves slipping back, be able to claim for the original miss sale? If they now know there is a risk but didn't act originally because they were told it was going to be ok - what is their standing now in relation to these policies.

Also what about endowments not linked to a mortgage/With profits policies - has anyone successfully claimed a missale on them and if so on what basis were their claims upheld? What will happen to Addiscomber for instance if this is a WP policy?

Mr_helpful

Do you think there would be the claims vultures if they were not going to get paid." They only get paid if they win the case surely - they can't win the case if there is a signature - ask Vinno 65.

But you say the signature is meaningless because you dont undrestand what you are signing for

If the endowments were on target we would never have discovered the fact that they were linked to the stock market would we?

yes and if the government didnt ban smoking in pubs we wouldnt know its bad for us would we?

I don't have a problem with the idea of the firm making up the money at the end of the term - that would not be a missale because you would be getting what you were sold.

but performance is not grounds for miss sale.

mayb_2

?????????

Is it me or has Mrhelpfull completely lost his marbles? I blame the hypnotism myself.

absolutebounder

I think it is you. There is nothing wrong with Mr H's hypnotism but he could have got to you.

Crazy_Saver

Hi Addiscomber.

I will watch your new thread with great interest, as we too have an Eagle Star Low cost endowment (with profits) which is now under Zurich. Ours is currently running at a loss of around £30k on a £60k mortgage.

We have decided to await the FOS outcome before we do anything with the policy.

I have to say that the people on this forum have been absolutely brilliant, giving me so much help and advice.

I would put lots of smilies here but I've been having terrible problems with the system lately :-(

Regards

Crazy Saver

mayb_2

Ok I'll go again.

"But you say the signature is meaningless because you dont undrestand what you are signing for"

No I say I didn't sign anything and the signature does not prove understanding.

"yes and if the government didnt ban smoking in pubs we wouldnt know its bad for us would we?"

Sorry completely lost me there - we would not have complained about something if we hadn't known it had happened/governments ban on smoking???

I agree with your plan for companies to make up the shortfall themselves when you have been missold and you say
"but performance is not grounds for miss sale."

I never said it was - I did say we would not have known about the link to stocks and shares if these things had come up with the goods as promised. So - they may have been missold in the sense that we did not know how they reached their targets but - they would have reached their targets so we would never have known they were missold. Got it? They just did what they said they would do - that is pay the mortgage. Simple really.