Has anyone heard of EMCAS? wrt endowment mis-selling

Phoenix-moon

Hi All,

Has anyone heard of a company called EMCAS? are they genuine?

I have never made a claim for the endowments I was sold to cover my mortgage, and EMCAS have offered to do it for me. I know I would not be able to DIY it, so I'm thinking I should use them. Without their help I will get nothing.

I just thought I should check first to see if anyone here knows of them.

Thanks

kingstreet

The search option is your friend;-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4208893

One thread about them.

Phoenix-moon

:eek:

OMGosh.... Thank You Kingstreet!!

I literally have their form in my hand. Instead of going in the post, it will now go into the fire.

I have seen their website, and the booklet they send out with the form. It all looked very genuine. They claim to have a relationship with the Ministry of Justice, but the Ministry's website has no mention of them. So I just wasn't sure.

I am very glad I know about your website.

So is there anyone who can help me with a claim about the endowments, or should I just let it go?

kingstreet

Can you lay out for us how you bought them, when the sale took place, what warning letters you've received and what wrongdoing do you allege?

A legitimate complaint does not need a third party.

Phoenix-moon

Hello again,

It gets complicated because there are five policies... each one was purchased to cover an increased mortgage when I moved house, so they were taken out during a period from 1985 to 1991. I remember the sales people telling me things like:

"you don't have to cover the full amount of the (mortgage) increase, because these (endowments) will mature for 3 or 4 times the guaranteed amount"
and
"you have to have the life insurance even though you have no dependents"
and
"this is a more expensive policy, but it will mature for a lot more than the cheaper types of policy" (it didn't)

Despite their assertions, I covered (I thought) the full amounts for each mortgage, expecting the promised extra maturity value to be retirement/fun money as the mortgage drew to an end. They were supposed to clear the mortgage, and leave me with a considerable lump sum.

When the whole 'mis-selling' scandal started, I didn't know if my policies were involved. They were all Standard Life, and for many years they continued to report the policies as being 'on track', and that they were committed to mutuality, so they didn't pay shareholders, and there was no need to worry. I trusted them.

Then all the building societies & insurers started converting to banks... and one day Standard Life wrote to say they were removing the guarantees from the policies. Some time later, the annual statements start having vague references to 'may not' meet expectations... and then they convert too. So they dropped the mutuality which was an essential part of why I chose them in the first place.

I admit, I find all this very confusing. The policies have matured during the last year or so, and did not cover the mortgage. There certainly was no lump sum / savings element to help fund my retirement, or provide for essential repairs to my home.

So I have felt I was misled significantly by the sellers, but I have no idea IF I can do anything... or How to do it.

Are there any legitimate companies which help with this?

holly_hobby

Regulation came in to force April 1988, so any policies purchased before this time are not subject to the same best advice regulation as those post this date. However, the contractual terms of the policies could not be mis-represented (this comes under Mis-Representation Act 1967). If you have proof that you were provided with gtes re the target sum (doubtful but worth my raising), then you may have an avenue to explore.

To be clear you can not be compensated for loss of expectation (i.e - poor performance) - however if you were not made aware of the risks and/or the policies were unsuitable to your risk profile - revealled by POS docs and the Firms questioning of you (and if not timebarred you may have a route).

When I discuss time barring - what I mean by that, is when you recd revised estimated maturity values (which was an industry wide directive that commenced over 10 yrs ago) (and if you had no idea that the target sum was not gted), then you had 3 yrs from the date of receipt of your 1st amber/red letter (advising of a shortfall), or when you became aware the policies were NOT gted to meet the target sum (if you knew of the associated risks, before receipt of your emv's - which does appear to be the case from your above commments), to raise your complaint of suitability.

Low cost endowments are qualifying policies (which means that subject to meeting certain criteria), the proceeds are tax free - one of the qualifyng criteria is the inclusion of life cover, so its inclusion (despite no dependants) does not ON ITS OWN constitute a mis-sale.

Buying top up endowments each time you increase your mge, was the normal way of continuing to maintain an endowment mge, BUT of course the target figure of each new top up policy , would mirror the increase to mge. I can not imagine the adviser effecting a policy that was short of the target sum, using the higher growth fig as you suggest, as the cover - as it means less commission (and that was generally the name of the game) - IF however this was the case, then thats negligence IF correct - which would be evidenced by the actual TARGET sum (GDB) being LESS than the actual increase to mge.

Hope this helps

Holly

magpiecottage

Holly's post is very helpful

holly_hobby wrote: »

To be clear you can not be compensated for loss of expectation (i.e - poor performance) - however if you were not made aware of the risks and/or the policies were unsuitable to your risk profile - revealled by POS docs and the Firms questioning of you (and if not timebarred you may have a route).

There is a difficulty with this.

Buying top up endowments each time you increase your mge, was the normal way of continuing to maintain an endowment mge

The difficulty in this instance is that, by the time the regulation came in, the OP already had an endowment mortgage.

At that time, lenders could not run an account part interest-only and part repayment, so you had to either carry on with the endowment or abandon it and go entirely repayment.

I first managed to get a lender to do part and part in 1992 and over the next year or two other lenders did as well.

BUT of course the target figure of each new top up policy , would mirror the increase to mge. I can not imagine the adviser effecting a policy that was short of the target sum, using the higher growth fig as you suggest, as the cover - as it means less commission (and that was generally the name of the game) - IF however this was the case, then thats negligence IF correct - which would be evidenced by the actual TARGET sum (GDB) being LESS than the actual increase to mge.

Actually there was sometimes scope to vary the target rate. The life cover remained the same. However, lenders normally specified a maximum permitted growth assumption - typically half way between the maximum and minimum specified by the lender.

Most insurance companies used that although one or two would allow you to pay more.

Of more concern to me would be a churn - that is abandoning an existing policy and taking out a brand new one.

Phoenix-moon wrote: »

:eek:
I have seen their website, and the booklet they send out with the form. It all looked very genuine. They claim to have a relationship with the Ministry of Justice, but the Ministry's website has no mention of them. So I just wasn't sure.

That is because the MOJ simply regulates them but does not endorse them.

It has also told them they should not indicate it does endorse them, so your comment suggests they treat their regulator with contempt.

So is there anyone who can help me with a claim about the endowments, or should I just let it go?

I fear that you are now too late. In any case, the sales that WERE regulated would, if correctly advised, probably have resulted in you choosing an endowment anyway.

holly_hobby

Hi MC x

magpiecottage wrote: »

The difficulty in this instance is that, by the time the regulation came in, the OP already had an endowment mortgage.

At that time, lenders could not run an account part interest-only and part repayment, so you had to either carry on with the endowment or abandon it and go entirely repayment.

I agree that it may be unlikely that a client would wholly change from one repayment method to another (due to as you say, the availability pre 92 of part n part arrangements), but I don't believe the existance of pre A day contracts (which as we know were not based on suitability), or the possible issues re split mge repayment, can be used to wholly demonstrate and defend suitability of post A day sales (where there is a poss mis-sale).

magpiecottage wrote: »

Actually there was sometimes scope to vary the target rate. The life cover remained the same. However, lenders normally specified a maximum permitted growth assumption - typically half way between the maximum and minimum specified by the lender.

Most insurance companies used that although one or two would allow you to pay more

AFAIK the illustrations and std premium level (post A), have always been based on the mid prescribed growth achieving the target sum - the GDB was of course set at the target sum - I was under the impression that he meant the target sum was less than the mge top up .. maybe I've mis-understood what he's trying to explain.

And yes I do recall maxi (increased prems) endowments from memory - CU had them.

magpiecottage wrote: »

Of more concern to me would be a churn - that is abandoning an existing policy and taking out a brand new one.

This is a little mis-leading to the layman (although I know that you will know the definition of a churned sale) - but for the benefit of clarity to the reader. (hope thats ok ...)

A straight (advised) policy cancellation/abandonment with replacement by another, is not necessarily a churn. - a churn is the advised cancellation of a contact by an adviser, with they selling a direct replacement of an idential/largely similar contract, with identical (or lesser) benefits to that cancelled, yet with a similar or higher premium to that cancelled - but with no additional benefit or gain (monetary and/or contractual) , and/or of course a tangible loss/inc cost, that could not/never be recouped under the replacement contract sold to the individual - with the Advisors driving factors in the recommendation of such actions, being purely and solely commission driven.

But I didn't think there were cancellations here ? If so, and they come under the above, then there may be a churn issue.

I do fully agree and would be astounded if the policies were not timebarred - it does seem to me that the OP indicates being aware of the risk factors (whether this was pre or post POS to be determined), and appears to have elected to wait and see what they matured at, which was sadly with a shortfall to target, which as we know can not be compensated for.

Holly x