im lost re miselling??

Compensationitis

This has nothing to do with guarantees or investment performance.

EdInvestor

Why don't you point BarryM to the correct link? Most of the other items under misrepresentation are Equitable related.

Compensationitis

This isn't on any website I know of, not in a collated form that is.

If you look at http://www.ifadu.co.uk/downloads/FOI0002.pdf

And then ask me who the errant providers are we can ask the FSA together since they are STILL trying to dodge disclosure.

BarryM_3

Compensationitis,

Wow! I'm beginning to see where you're coming from. How about a bit of reverse engineering here? If I understand this correctly, a bunch of firms all produced illustrations based on a set of charges that were prescribed by LAUTRO rules. Presumably someone (you?) has access to what those rules were - surely, this must be in the public domain. Then people like me, with detailed illustrations provided by firms during the critical period, can see whether these tally with the LAUTRO charges. If they do, then that's another name added to the list of miscreants.

Do you have details of the LAUTRO-prescribed charging structure?

Best,

BarryM

Compensationitis

Yep

99% of firms used charges that were sometimes half their own, or even worse.

I have all the documents plus the admissions from the providers (supplied by a friend). We are looking for underwriters for our insurance before we start the action, although the providers will say the FSA is to blame because it was then known as the SIB and they passed all the directives down to LAUTRO we have a good case for a claim.

I have all the comparative tables from Money Management going back to 1988 and all the LAUTRO bulletins, in one they were shocked to find a provider charging 'many times' more than 50% over LAUTRO 'assumed expenses'.

Glad someone else has grasped the enormity of the situation. It's a deception on a grand scale that MUST be brought into the open ASAP.

BarryM_3

I have all the documents plus the admissions from the providers (supplied by a friend).

I have all the comparative tables from Money Management going back to 1988 and all the LAUTRO bulletins, in one they were shocked to find a provider charging 'many times' more than 50% over LAUTRO 'assumed expenses'.

This sounds like quality information that might help a lot of people with their cases. Is there any reason why you shouldn't make this information generally available?

Compensationitis

I intend to go public as soon as the casework is finished, I thought I'd test the water with someone unconnected with this first to see what they thought. Should wipe out a few providers but who cares when people are falling short on mortgages, pensions and life insurance et al?