Pension mis-selling in the 80's/90's

Culzean

dunstonh wrote: »

Class action suits are not something you see in the UK generally. Also, the problem with trying to find others is that your action is against Sedgewick. You would be reliant on finding others who used the same company and have the same views as you. That is going to be a small pot of people. You would also need them to be willing to pay legal costs as you are not.

I think my angst is with the regulator. It is he that issued the calculation instructions to Sedgwick and all the others and it was those that were wildly underestimated and it is the regulator that should order the review to be reopened (in some cases)



actually, they were not wildly optimistic. They were set by the regulator and reasonable and lower than past decades. We have just had one of the worst investment decades in history. Highly unfortunate yes but it happens.

Apologies, I should have said hindsight, albeit when I was offered the settlement the investment return would have had to perform at the same rate as the sorts of returns being suggested that got me into the situation in the first place!

It's also interesting that the regulator orders a review because the investment returns used to sell the pension were not being achieved yet when the investment returns that he prescribes are not being achieved he can turn his back on the impact of it



It all comes back down to the fact you accepted the offer of compensation.

I think you will find most of us here sympathise with your situation but would likely feel you have no hope given your acceptance of the offer plus the firm that gave you the advice no longer exists. So, you cant take them to court anyway. The redress under the FSCS is capped and follows a defined method and as your complaint was settled and accepted prior to the FSCS taking on liaiblity, they dont need to consider any new complaint on the same subject as an already closed and settled case. Plus, there is also the probabilty you are timebarred anyway as you have 15 years to raise court action.

I hear that and have already described and can evidence that I signed under protest.

I could not take action earlier as I hadn't reached retirement age and as Sedgwick told me at the time there is still 15 years for the investment to grow and therefore I cannot substantiate my claim at the time that the sum was inadequate.

This despite the fact that in the preceding 6 years leading up to the review my pension had paid an annual bonus of 0% ... even with that I was given no latitude to challenge the sum

Finally I do appreciate the sympathy and time people have gone to here to give me a view. I guess I wasn't asking for an opinion of likelihood of success (this is certainly David v Goliath) but more trying to figure out how I take this forward as I simply have to, that or face a retirement of hardship.

dunstonh

Malcnascar wrote: »

Does this provide and answers?

http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw.aspx?EntryID=14677

And the "killer" in that case is right at the end

Conclusion

For these reasons, I would hold that both primary and secondary claims are statute-barred. I would refuse Mr Shore's application for permission to appeal in respect of the issues of liability and causation and dismiss the appeal.

Lord Justice Keene:
I agree.
Lord Justice Buxton:
I also agree.

Culzean

Malcnascar wrote: »

Does this provide and answers?

Gosh that's tough to follow but thanks, I've saved the document for possible further reference.

I don't think it does as the fundamental difference is that in my case Sedgwicks (now Mercer) readily admitted that they had given me misleading or inaccurate advice that caused me financial loss. But, it was the regulator that set the amount of compensation that they needed to pay and essentially I received nothing (my pension pre compensation and today is exactly the same = GMP)

So my angst is with the regulator and I simply don't accept that "they weren't to know that investment returns would not match their estimates" - I have received 0% on my "investment" for the past 20 years!

I need the regulator to recognise the wrong doing and take another look at the review

Surely if they weren't to know investment returns and annuity rates but the objective of the review was to "restore my position to what it would have been had I not transferred from the final salary scheme" (their words not mine) then the investment risk should have been placed on Sedgwick and not myself?

Obviously it's a highly daunting prospect to contemplate taking on the regulator. I'm not even sure how I go about it hence my original post trying to discover others in the same boat, understanding what they might have done and figuring out if there were any way a group could be got together.

uk1

I won a substantial amount under misseling, although I was originally turned down. I suggest that younask for a breakdown of both the full calculations including all assumptions.

I knew (only instinctively) that my initial rejection and then the calculations were wrong. I turned out to be right. My settlement was very large.

Get the detail, and check to see if there were any errors.

NClay

I have been looking into the same matter for a friend.

You need to contact a reputable solicitor who deals with this sort of issue on a daily basis.

Try: Linder Myers Sue Beaumont 0844 984 6216. If you have a good case they may take it 'No win no Fee'

Thrugelmir

NClay wrote: »

I have been looking into the same matter for a friend.

You need to contact a reputable solicitor who deals with this sort of issue on a daily basis.

Try: Linder Myers Sue Beaumont xxxxxxxx. If you have a good case they may take it 'No win no Fee'

Advertising by any chance? Against forum rules

fairleads

Culzean wrote: »

Gosh that's tough to follow but thanks, I've saved the document for possible further reference.

I don't think it does as the fundamental difference is that in my case Sedgwicks (now Mercer) readily admitted that they had given me misleading or inaccurate advice that caused me financial loss. But, it was the regulator that set the amount of compensation that they needed to pay and essentially I received nothing (my pension pre compensation and today is exactly the same = GMP)

So my angst is with the regulator and I simply don't accept that "they weren't to know that investment returns would not match their estimates" - I have received 0% on my "investment" for the past 20 years!

I need the regulator to recognise the wrong doing and take another look at the review

Surely if they weren't to know investment returns and annuity rates but the objective of the review was to "restore my position to what it would have been had I not transferred from the final salary scheme" (their words not mine) then the investment risk should have been placed on Sedgwick and not myself?

Obviously it's a highly daunting prospect to contemplate taking on the regulator. I'm not even sure how I go about it hence my original post trying to discover others in the same boat, understanding what they might have done and figuring out if there were any way a group could be got together.

When reading your post i'm reminded of the phrase "the courage of your conviction". I believe you have it and advise you not to give up. After all the initial consult took place on your employer's premises etc.

NClay

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Advertising by any chance? Against forum rules

No! Simply a recommendation of someone I know could help. As they have helped me.

uk1

uk1 wrote: »

I won a substantial amount under misseling, although I was originally turned down. I suggest that younask for a breakdown of both the full calculations including all assumptions.

I knew (only instinctively) that my initial rejection and then the calculations were wrong. I turned out to be right. My settlement was very large.

Get the detail, and check to see if there were any errors.

I posted the above back then ... it would be interesting to see the specifics of how this progressed.

The fact that a settlement was accepted seems immaterial. It os the calculations being questioned. The OP needs to understand which specific regulator calculations were said to be being followed. The rules in those days were to put people back into the position they were before the poor advice. This has obviously not happened.

Culzean

uk1 wrote: »

I posted the above back then ... it would be interesting to see the specifics of how this progressed.

The fact that a settlement was accepted seems immaterial. It os the calculations being questioned. The OP needs to understand which specific regulator calculations were said to be being followed. The rules in those days were to put people back into the position they were before the poor advice. This has obviously not happened.

It's a year on and I've come to a grinding halt. I found a solicitor willing to help but the cost of insuring against the defendants (FCA or Mercer) costs (they would need to cover over £100K) were well beyond my capability

My last point of appeal was the Complaints Commissioner who replied with a very detailed 7 page letter. Even though he said he was powerless he seemed to be encouraging me. He suggested that 2 fundamental Human Rights might have been violated (The peaceful right of possession of my property and the right to remedy) but when I look further I think the process of taking this to the court of Human Rights can only happen if I have exhausted all legal avenues here .... which without a minimum £100K or so I cannot do

If you are still reading the calculations were checked and they were correct but I have pretty well lost all of my pension of £22000+ annually and the paultry compensation paid has not changed the guarantee offered (£7000) when I transferred the pension, by one penny. As you rightly say all I ever wanted was to be put back in the same place