Emcas

predian

It's hard to think clearly sometimes when you are cold-called, I would normally hang-up once I find out what the call is about.
Their pack arrived today- Letter of Authority says reasons for complaint: You were not prepared to take any risk with your investment,
The adviser did not explain that your investment was at risk,
The advisor failed to discuss/recommend any other products,
You were an inexperienced investor at the point of sale and were therefore completely reliant on the advisor's recommendation.

All these points were pushed on me with a yes or no answer only and are not a true account of the facts. My investments are all low risk and were advised for that reason, all have gained value.

holly_hobby

predian wrote: »

Their pack arrived today- Letter of Authority says reasons for complaint: You were not prepared to take any risk with your investment,
The adviser did not explain that your investment was at risk,
The advisor failed to discuss/recommend any other products,
You were an inexperienced investor at the point of sale and were therefore completely reliant on the advisor's recommendation.

All these points were pushed on me with a yes or no answer only and are not a true account of the facts. My investments are all low risk and were advised for that reason, all have gained value.

The points noted above are all to determine if the policy was suitable to the clients risk profile and if the adviser mis-representated the terms of the vehicle during the sale.

You say that your investments are all low risk (which are suitable for a cautious investor), and I would (if mge related) guess are with profit low cost endowments. I'm pleased that they have performed reasonably well for you, but again low risk investment vehicles, doesn't mean NO risk, and they are similarly not gted to meet the original target figure at maturity - no investment vehicle is capable of that.

However, from your comments, it does sound as though the policy(ies) were suitable to your risk profile, and that you were both aware of and accepted, the associated performance risks of the contract(s).

In the OPs case, the basis of complaint as prompted by EMACs, is solely on the point that the vehicles performance has failed to mirror the illustrations and estimated growth figs provided at point of sale.

Assuming the vehicles were appropriate to the clients risk profile and were not mis-represented by either POS illustrations, policy literature and/or the adviser, then poor performance in isolation is not a valid basis of complaint (as discussed earlier), and will certainly be rejected by both the firm and FOS.


Hope this helps

Holly x

dunstonh

predian wrote: »

It's hard to think clearly sometimes when you are cold-called, I would normally hang-up once I find out what the call is about.
Their pack arrived today- Letter of Authority says reasons for complaint: You were not prepared to take any risk with your investment,
The adviser did not explain that your investment was at risk,
The advisor failed to discuss/recommend any other products,
You were an inexperienced investor at the point of sale and were therefore completely reliant on the advisor's recommendation.

All these points were pushed on me with a yes or no answer only and are not a true account of the facts. My investments are all low risk and were advised for that reason, all have gained value.

I take it that EMCAS didnt view your suitability report/reasons why letter before generating a template complaint?

I know the board does not like us making accusations against companies but this company is clearly scamming people and creating costs, which could potentially put an adviser out of business (a complaint referred to the FOS costs the adviser £500 even if the complaint is bogus - a few of those coming in to a new adviser or one that does not have a high enough turnover could be damaging)

This company isnt targeting big faceless firms but small local firms. Most of whom do nothing wrong (IFAs account for 1% of complaints at the FOS despite being the major distribution channel for regulated financial products).

This is the ugly side of the compensation culture.

predian

Yes they basically tried to convince me that I had reason to claim (which I don't) and they post out their info pack to push for a signature to pursue it. If I felt I had a problem with an investment product I would contact the provider first to discuss it.
Thanks for everyone's help and reassurance.