i've read on here of successfull claims against mis-selling of endowment pre 1987

redwazza

i took out my endowment policy in 1987 which was to pay off my mortgage of 19,000. The total value of the policy was to be around 30,000 so we should have about 11,000 left over.

In 2000 we got our first shortfall letter but i was told that with the final bonus i should stll receive around 19,000 so it was still on track to pay our mortgage. Over the next few years we recieved projected valuations and it was projected 15,000 was a valuation a few years ago so i switched 2,000 over to repayment so we only owed 17,000 on the endowment and i started a savings policy which we ended up with 3,500 in so i had it covered.

In Jan 2012 i recieved my cheque... 10,500 we got, i added my 3,500 saving giving us 14,000. So despite the actions i took i was still 3,000 short. This has caused me a tremendous amount of stress over the last 12 months. I contacted the endowment company and the financial ombudsman several times over the years only to be told that because i took out the policy before the FSA was formed there was NOTHING i could do.

I have now read several posts on this site of people having success of claiming on policies taken out before mine in 1987. Please can someone help me how i can do this. Also does it make a difference now mine has finished and been paid out to me. Ive lost 20 grand on what i was originally told i would get. I just cant let this lie as we're still trying to get ourselves straight.

My original policy was taken out with Crusader which was sold several times and ended up with a company called Alba life. Ive contacted them and they just didnt want to know and were quite rude.

holly_hobby

As you have been advised by the firm and FOS, policies purchased before 29 April 1988 (referred to as A Day), are not regulated, which means that the salesperson did not have a duty re suitability of the contract, so the Firms are not leally bound to review the sale as they would a regulated one. However, whilst the salesperson did not have a duty to assess suitability, neither could they make any mis-leading comments regarding the contract itself (which I'll come to later on in this post).

To be accurate, you haven't actually lost anything (although I know it will be difficult to not feel that way), what has happened is that the performance of your policy hasn't mirrored that anticipated/ guesstimates of the time - again you can not be compensated for loss of expectation (don't forget your premium include a element which purchased life cover too).

The successes you may be speaking about, may be in connection with those firms, whom although not reqd to do so by the regulator, voluntarily elect to review the sale - but that is very much an individual decision of the firm and not mandatory. (furthermore even if your firm did review pre A day sales, you recd your first red/amber letter in 2000, within which you would have been advised you had 3 yrs from that date to raise any complaint re suitability, which you apparently chose not to, but accepted the risk and maintained the policy to see what returns would be at maturity).

Notwithstanding the above, as I say although advice was not regulated pre 29.4.88, neither could the salesperson make any inaccurate/untrue claims, to which any complaint you brought in respect of such an accusation, would be do so under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (as oppossed to the Financial Services Act 1987 which is in relation to regualted financial svcs products/sales).

If bringing your complaint under the MA67 (as the firm had refused to review pre A day sales), then you would need to provide sufficient evidence or proof regarding your claims, which I imagine are that you were advised returns were gted - if you have no evidence of this (and don't forget we know this is a pre A day sale so evidence would be reqd), then yes there would be no where to go with this in any event.

Sorry if this isn't what you hoped to hear, but hope helpful all the same.

Hope this helps

Holly

kingstreet

redwazza wrote: »

i was told that with the final bonus i should stll receive around 19,000 so it was still on track to pay our mortgage

Could you confirm how you received this information and from whom?

redwazza

The company holding my endowment changed several times over the 25yrs. From crusader to brittania (or brittanic) to Phoenix life and finally to Alba. At the time of my first shortfall letter in 2000 i think it was with Brittania or Phoenix at that time. The letter was off them so i phoned them up and they told me that with the final bonus i would still be on track to pay off the mortgage. Thanks

holly_hobby

Hi there,

Ok, a review will show that you were aware of the performance/investmetn risks in 2000 ( as already discussed) - which means (ignoring its a Pre A Day sale), that it would definately be time barred (2003 being your cut off point).

Even if the clerk did say (during your call to discuss the possible shortfall as highlighted in your revised EMV letter), that it remained "on track" given the "addition of the final bonus" (which is a terminal bonus and also NOT guaranteed), that it shoudl be noted the term "on track" is not indicative nor representative of a gte of return, and coupled together with your red or amber letter highlighting the risk of a shortfall (and your phone call acknowlding the notification of risk) - this would be a dead duck as at 2003, even if the firm did review pre A day sales.

Sorry, I know you will be disappointed with returns and my honest response , but wasting any more time on this will be counter productive for you .... this sale is pre A day, the firm won't and don't have to review the sale (FOS can't make them or review it independently), PLUS we have a time bar defence to boot.

Move onto to more positive things would be my advice ...

Wish you well ... and hope this helped a little ... if not the best news in the world !

Holly x