Endowment Mis-selling

defender_of_the_weak

I have been emailed about this site by my colleague ref some of the comments on here and in other sites. I see some of the contributors seem to be the same. First things first, I run a company that handles endowment complaints on behalf of the public. Thats my company about 5 postings ago. I have read all the notes on this topic, and really must put a few facts straight.

Anything more than a charge of 10% plus VAT is too much that's what the consumers association said

I have'nt seen anyone charge 50% plus, the top I have seen is 35% plus VAT

Not everyone has access to the web or the education and literacy to deal with this themselves.

The problem with using any standard letter is that it is just that, and does not necessarily reflect your case in full.

Not serious senior IFA work!!!!! You're having a laugh. I have spent the last year fighting two separate cases where they have tried to pay clients tens of thousands of pounds less than they deserve. It has taken hours and hours of work and most IFA's would not have touched either case.

Compensationitis

fancy a 100% success rate and fast payout?

There are ambulance chasers charging 50% of the first £500.

There is one 'claims handler' that charges 10% with a promise of 100% success, they are also willing to take on the complaints other 'claims handlers' failed to win.

Food for thought?

scottishlizzie

gobananas5 wrote:

A few humble observations.

What happens when scots lizzie gets asked to help in a case against the company she is working for?

I wouldn't touch it of course! One of the first questions I ask clients is the name of the insurance company. If it's my company, no can do I'm afraid.

Compensationitis

Why don't you set up your own ambulance chasing firm Liz?

EdInvestor

Compensationitis

I'm confused. On the one hand, your very "handle" implies criticism of people who feel they should be compensated for having been missold an endowment.

On the other hand, you claim that everyone was missold endowments and other WP policies from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s, because the regulator enforced misleading projections which meant the policies couldn't perform.

If your claim is true, should not then everyone claim? Why should they be criticised for doing what is their right?

Or are you looking at the Big Picture, so to speak - ie that anyone who took out an endowment mortgage from that period will be sitting on a big profit due to the rise in house prices and should not be paid compensation for a loss because they haven't made one?

If so, may I suggest that you aim your campaign at pensions WP savers where the issue is much more clear cut.Not too many people making profits out of pensions these days.:(

Or have these people already been paid compensation 10 years ago?

Compensationitis

Any endowment that was based on LAUTRO 'assumed expenses' is faulty because the premium was set too low to provide anywhere near the target amount. These were started between April 1988 and January 1995.

The old policies before 1988 are generally good stuff but theres are a few differs, I haven't seen a 25 year endowment with a decent provider mature with a shortfall, the FSA are forcing providers to mislead policyholders from that era.

Post January 1995 policies began life with actual charges setting the premiums apart form a few that 'slipped through' as the FSA lightly put it, these had a better chance of doing what it said on the tin.

The big issue is the over optimistic growth rate assumptions imposed by the regulators at different stages, mainly on a downward trend based on short term history.

Yes some people deserve compensation but it isn't anywhere near what they seem to be getting and this makes everyone want a slice of the action in a 'me too' feeding frenzy where truth and reality are forgotten.

By the way, my argument applies to ALL life office products sold in the LAUTRO days.

AND, if an adviser pays out compensation and subsequently finds out he need not have he is entitled to reclaim it under 'mistake of fact'. This could get messy!

defender_of_the_weak

Ah that one then. Frankly I have given up trying to track what other companies are doing, I believe there are now nearly a hundred to choose from and fees range from hundreds of pounds up front, fixed fee for writing one letter win or not, to the aforementioned 35% plus VAT.

I am afraid I will decline your kind offer to insert the Lautro projection argument into every case to guarantee success because experience tells me it won't happen. Even when I proved that the adviser had commited fraud the life office turned down the complaint and we had to take the case to FOS to get it upheld and redress paid.

Nobody, but nobody can guarantee success in these cases. There is a great load of misleading advertising going on and some DPA breaches as well I believe.

Cannot condone or defend what other companies do

Compensationitis

Yes, more than 100 still running and more than 100 fallen by the wayside with more to follow soon. Big cashflow problems caused by offering 'no win no fee' and then sitting around for months waiting for the bunce to arrive with providers deliberatly holding onto it so that MORE ambulance chasers fall over. I have a copy of some research that a provider carried out on these firms, fascinating stuff.

NEVER let the ambulance chasers accept the redress on your behalf, you may never see your share.

If these firms were regulated it might be a different story?

defender_of_the_weak

I don't think the regulator will get round to it in time. Look how long it took to regulate mortgages etc, by the time they draft the legislation the time bars will finally fall and they will all be off looking for something new.

Sound advice. Never let a third party have the money first and never pay anything up front regardless of how convincing the blurb and sales pitch is. Never pay more than the which recommended amount of 15% (including VAT) as a maximum and if it is a flat fee then it must be based solely on success, remembering that in certain circumstances you can win and receive no money at all as you have not made a loss. the average they say is £5,000 but this means some get more and some get less if you pay £200 and only win £6.05 there is only one winner

Compensationitis

BUT...

Nobody has suffered a loss until the policy matures!

The FSCS will not pay out on a projected loss unless it is a pensions review case.

Why is this so hard to digest?

Rose tinted glasses are popular these days?

What is a waste of time? :

Ambulance chasers taking cases against IFAs who are no longer authorised or 'dead FIMBRA'?

Ambulance chasers taking cases to the FSCS?

Both of the above?

Answers on a postcard please.

And please tell these ambulance chasers to stop wasting valuable time advertising on boards like this.