Tampering with voice recording

gettingolder_2

I have focussed my claim on the mistake made in ignoring my letter which stated my understanding of the telephone conversation but they have not offered more than the original £100. The company have turned the focus to the phone call to justify their claim that they didn't say anything misleading. I agree I need to turn the attention back to the letter which clearly stated my understanding of the phone conversation.

They have had to top up the value of the fund by nearly £60,000 to cover the GMP and the compensation for the original bad advice claim and are probably reluctant to offer more.
Rather than proposing a compromise they seem to think that I am expecting to be compensated the full sum. At the appropriate stage I will suggest a figure I would accept.
Thanks to all for your input which is helping to clarify my strategy.

atush

but you haven't answered. Did you send that letter recorded delivery?

Buzby

My worry is that their interpretation (and possibly that of a court) is that you cannot assert the 'ignored' your letter or sections of it.

Negotiations are made and amended as part of the process. Your position is countered by their offer, and the points that are not explicitly covered need to form part of the negotiation.

If they are not, then they fall by the wayside, the final acceptance being the sated position of the final letter or agreement, what wen previously is irrelevant.

view

robmatic wrote: »

No offence but it is exceptionally unlikely that a pension provider will commit fraud at all, let alone in connection with a sum of £10000 which is fairly trifling as operational losses go.

I agree, however, it's possible it's not a company in entirety committing fraud, all it would take is one dodgy, unscrupulous employee who is 'clever' with technology. My brother worked in a technology software company who managed pensions etc.. where huge mistakes were made like this pretty much on a monthly basis and large amounts of compensation frequently offered/fines given. Yes very unlikely a pension company would commit fraud I do agree however.

GhIFA

gettingolder wrote: »

The company made several errors in the presentation of the information for exiting the fund (primarily because of the compensation payment), failed to point out the guarantees that applied if I left the fund invested and then made this mistake by ignoring my conditional exit instructions. They have sent me a cheque for £100 with an apology which I consider totally inadequate. In line with your comment I am tempted to write expressing my doubts about the accuracy of the recording and suggest that unless I can reach a satisfactory settlement I plan to send a full summary of all the mistakes and forward it together with the recording to the ombudsman to see what view he takes of the handling of this case.

A few questions:

What was the previous complaint in relation to? And for what reason was the compensation paid?

Who is the provider? What sort of plan is it?

What were the mistakes in presenting the information for exiting the fund?

What were the guarantees that they failed to point out? Did they make any generic reference to guarantees or just not mention them at all? Did they suggest in any correspondence that you seek advice before proceeding (from what you have written so far, I am assuming that you were doing this yourself).

What were your "conditions for exiting"?

That may seem like a lot of questions, and they are not designed to be intrusive, but I am trying to get some understanding of what has occurred, and whether there is any disparity between what you wanted them to do and what they could actually do in a non-advised transaction.

uk1

Re previous post. I am not certain what the current position is but I had a non-advised fee basis pension transfer but was advised to complain anyway when it was clearly the wrong outcome. The issue was found in my favour and my fund was transferred back to my employers scheme with approximately £120k injection. These things don't appear to be clear cut.

gettingolder_2

To answer atush - the letter was sent as a pdf attachment to an email which was acknowledged as being received. There is no dispute that the letter was received and they have apologised for ignoring the instructions.

dunstonh

gettingolder, you have been asked a number of questions on this thread but are not answering them. It is difficult to give help if you dont answer the questions.

gettingolder_2

To answer GhIFA - I am not able to answer the specifics of this question regarding the previous complaint as I am bound by a confidentiality agreement.
The policy was a Section 32 buy out which had reached the date when the GMP conditions could be invoked. I had the option to leave it in place, transfer it or take an annuity from a 3rd party.
The documentation sent in advance of the policy anniversary date asking what action I wanted to take failed to layout clearly how the compensation was calculated. It also failed to state that if I left the policy invested that I would be entitled to mandatory guarantees. Fortunately I was aware of these guarantees but do consider it unethical for them not to have been restated these in the letter.
The compensation agreement split the policy into 2 elements; one with GMP and one without. The policy valuation stated the final value (which would only fund about 50% of GMP) and a figure for adjustment to cover GMP. It was unclear whether this second figure included or excluded the non-GMP component - the heading on the valuation said "Adjustment for GMP". My phone call was for the sole purpose to discover whether the compensation was included or excluded. After the call I was clearly left with the understanding that this figure did not include the non-GMP component which is what I documented in my letter. The recording sent to me has no reference to the term "non-GMP" which I knew I used in the call.
So I transferred out on the understanding I would get the compensation on top. The receiving company confirmed the sum received and it was the base value which I had understood was just the GMP component, so I queried when the compensation element would transfer and was told that it was included in the sum transferred.
The company also failed to provide any written confirmation that the transfer had taken place and what the final value was. I have only recently received this more than 2 months after the transfer.
My grievance is over the totally incompetent way this was handled and that my decision to transfer was based on incorrect information. The transfer out was the cheapest solution for the company as the purchase of the annuity would have cost about £14,000 more.

laptop80

From a purely technical point of view, if they had digitally edited the recording it would most likely be seamless; there would be no reason for clicks to be introduced as though they were working with tape. Any unwanted sounds could be removed very easily indeed.

Fairly advanced digital audio editing software is easily available that can produce results only an expert would be able to highlight inconsistencies with - to most ears it would sound perfect.