Incorrect ISA advice given by bank.

jem16

honizz wrote: »

Verbally they told me the adviser hadn't explained the product fully and that the evidence documented wasn't good enough.

So why don't you see that as you getting lucky? You were not compensated for the fact that it was wrong advice but you were compensated for the fact that someone hadn't kept better records.

They said age and income has no bearing.

Of course they would. However they are wrong.

Also, I asked the advisers about the media comments you refer about 1 month ago when I saw your comment and link about it. They said it was sour grapes that they are successful.

Naturally they would say that. You wouldn't expect a company with a bad reputation to tell you the truth would you?

You do seem a little naive I'm afraid.

They do appear to know a lot about you though which I thought was funny.

All they will know is that dunstonh takes time to warn people about dodgy claims companies and has no doubt saved many people a lot of money. Long may it continue!

dunstonh

Verbally they told me the adviser hadn't explained the product fully and that the evidence documented wasn't good enough.

So, you got lucky with someone that didnt have a good audit trail. Not because the advice was wrong.

They said age and income has no bearing.

Yet the FSA guide shows it does.

They explained they were aware of the FSA report but that only applies to a small amount of people

That is right. The FSA review of SERPS found just 1.5% of people were potentially mis-sold. The FSA review looked at the figures. Not at whether audit trails/file keeping on advice given was in place.

Also, I asked the advisers about the media comments you refer about 1 month ago when I saw your comment and link about it. They said it was sour grapes that they are successful.

It is not sour grapes. There is an investigation going on. The company being investigated isnt going to tell you they are wrong.

They checked my file and then asked me if I had any concerns about anything they have done for me and I said absolutely not, they said well neither have the other 3000 clients they have had over the last 7 years!

If that was the case then they would not currently be undergoing an investigation. I have seen the template letter they used. How can it be ethical to put in a complaint saying the individual wanted no investment risk. However, then go and transfer the pension into unit linked funds that include Asia Pacfic?

They do appear to know a lot about you though which I thought was funny.

They don't know about me beyond my posts here. They possibly think I am someone else. Maybe the person that referred the complaint to the media and their compliance network but they are wrong. There have been posts and communications on other forums about them with multiple advisers involved where those communications have been published. Those have turned out to include the company owner saying one thing but the evidence pointing to another (e.g. saying he never got involved in the complaint side, yet the complaint letters were signed by him).

As Jem says, you are very naive. Maybe you should ask them for a copy of the complaints letter they sent in (or ask the insurer for a copy to ensure you get the real text). Then look at the reasons given in the complaint and see how many of the complaint reasons alleged were truthful and how many were made up.

honizz

Firstly the insurance company told me, personally to me that I was misadvised. They investigated my complaint and their outcome was that I should be compensated.

If anyone, including me had made the complaint the outcome would have been the same. A firm did this for me, completed all the paperwork and liaised with the insurer on my behalf. They kept me in the loop at all times and I ended up with more than they said I would. There is no part of this that was bad, dishonest and frankly the service was better than I had expected. In fact when the claim was initially turned down I thanked them for there help, they told me there were no guarantees.

2. Am I right in thinking that advice includes the correct paperwork too. For instance Dunstonh if you advised me to buy an ISA and didn't keep the correct paperwork you would be caught out for misselling? If that it true then the audit trail and necessary paperwork is just as important as the advice, is it not?

3. I can't remember definitely what they said about Dunstonh but I thought it was something like another Sesame IFA from Norfolk or Norwich area?

4. Lastly, which made me laugh my socks off and prove that Dunstonh knows absolutely nothing about this firm is that earlier I sent a copy of Dunstonh's post from 2.03pm. They sent me a quick reply attaching a copy of an email they had approx 1 week after the investigation saying the investigation is over!

They also attached a copy of a blanked out complaint letter dated in April 2013. The letter looks fine to me, talks about risk at the time of the sale nothing that would concern me, infact if it was my letter I would be more than happy with it.

I have dealt with these people and I know personally 2 others who have as well. We all have good opinions even my friend who lost the claim!

You talk about bad reputation but I can only see this reputation coming from someone who obviously doesn't know them - you

H

dunstonh

Firstly the insurance company told me, personally to me that I was misadvised.

That is different to what you said in post #21. There you said it was because " that the evidence documented wasn't good enough". That I could well believe as the further back you go in time, the less the quality of the paperwork would have been.

For instance Dunstonh if you advised me to buy an ISA and didn't keep the correct paperwork you would be caught out for misselling?

If you made certain allegations and the documentation didnt exist to cover those allegations then it could result in a mis-sale even if the advice was correct.

If that it true then the audit trail and necessary paperwork is just as important as the advice, is it not?

It is. However, that isn't an excuse to put in try-it-on complaints giving fake reasons in areas where you know advice from the late 80s, early 90s is likely to be poorly documented compared to todays standards.

3. I can't remember definitely what they said about Dunstonh but I thought it was something like another Sesame IFA from Norfolk or Norwich area?

You mean like my board name and location which is shown under the name? They really have worked hard haven't they.

4. Lastly, which made me laugh my socks off and prove that Dunstonh knows absolutely nothing about this firm is that earlier I sent a copy of Dunstonh's post from 2.03pm. They sent me a quick reply attaching a copy of an email they had approx 1 week after the investigation from a chap [text removed by MSE Forum Team] saying there was nothing wrong with the firm and the investigation is over! They indicated that if you would like a copy let them know and they will forward it to you.

I am sure that adviser that made the initial complaint and reported it to the media will be interested in that. The journalist that published it will be too. Plus, that response appears to be different to the one that was given to him by Sesame.

You talk about bad reputation but I can only see this reputation coming from someone who obviously doesn't know them - you

I don't need to know them personally. I know the template letter and allegations it contains. How can anyone ethically put in a complaint about wanting no risk then advise the individual to take higher risk investments?

jem16

honizz wrote: »

I have never met someone who has their head stuck in the clouds as much as Dunstonh.

I have - at the moment it sums you up perfectly.

In fact when the claim was initially turned down I thanked them for there help, they told me there were no guarantees.

So why was your claim initially turned down? Why then was it later upheld?

Nothing of course to do with paperwork being less than it should have been from such a long time ago?

3. I can't remember definitely what they said about Dunstonh but I thought it was something like another Sesame IFA from Norfolk or Norwich area?

That would be difficult to work out wouldn't it? His location is clearly marked under his name and he has mentioned Sesame before. Perhaps they could tell you something about him that isn't common knowledge on this forum?

4. Lastly, which made me laugh my socks off and prove that Dunstonh knows absolutely nothing about this firm is that earlier I sent a copy of Dunstonh's post from 2.03pm. They sent me a quick reply attaching a copy of an email they had approx 1 week after the investigation from a chap called xxx (name removed after request from honizz) saying there was nothing wrong with the firm and the investigation is over! They indicated that if you would like a copy let them know and they will forward it to you.

I'd like to see it too. Please ask them for it. Perhaps also ask for the links to the forums?

They also attached a copy of a blanked out complaint letter dated in April 2013. The letter looks fine to me, talks about risk at the time of the sale nothing that would concern me, infact if it was my letter I would be more than happy with it.

Then ask them for your letter and ask the pension provider for their copy too. Are you really so naive to think they would give you a copy of a real complaint letter?

honizz

This is a point I have seen you raise about risk. When I was 18 -25 and had no idea about stockmarkets, property I would have classed myself as low risk. I know I wouldn't have wanted to risk money.

Now, a few years on my view of risk has changed.

So their letter says, at the time he felt he was no risk - low risk.

As I said, if this letter was for me it would have been bang on.

Of course I can't confirm what was said to the adviser. It does say on the email that I received that in 2009 Sesame made the advisers create a separate legal entity called SR that would take the claims on.. This would mean that Sesame always knew about the firm!

I can't confirm or deny that as I haven't seen evidence, but I have seen evidence saying the investigation is over.


H

honizz

I have just gone through my pile of pension stuff and I have a copy of my complaint letter. I had a feeling it was there. Again there is nothing wrong with my letter, it is very similar to the one that was emailed which means that template letters are used to a degree however, I spotted today that MSE also uses template letters for complaints about products.

honizz

Jem what are links to the forum?

jem16

honizz wrote: »

http://i1059.photobucket.com/albums/t434/honizz/emailfromIM.jpg

I have tried again to attach a picture but can't. MSE is so hard to navigate I am amazed I can make a post.

honizz wrote: »

Who am I to believe DH or a head at Sesame?

Honizz I am quite sure that you believe what you have been told. However you haven't been told anything by the head of Sesame - you simply have an email (from the company under investigation)which is supposedly from him, which talks about an investigation but doesn't give any details and which could easily have been changed.

Earlier you said;

honizz wrote: »

They sent me a quick reply attaching a copy of an email they had approx 1 week after the investigation from a chap called xxx (name removed after request by honizz) saying there was nothing wrong with the firm and the investigation is over!

Where in the email you uploaded does it say there was nothing wrong with the firm?

However thank you for providing it.

As to the forum links, I meant the links on other forums where the company has been mentioned.

honizz

After calming down and talking to a friend over a late meal we decided to put all the pieces together like a jigsaw. Here are my conclusions.

1. DH definitely does not like the firm for whatever reason.
2. There was a report and an investigation.
3. I have seen proof which clearly states the investigation is over.
4. The firm is still trading under Sesame
5. The claims firm is still trading
6. Both firms still seem to be registered with the FSA and the ministry of justice.(I have just checked)
If there was an investigation and Sesame have confirmed its over and they are still trading exactly the same way as before I think we can safely say Sesame found nothing wrong!

Dunstonh would Sesame allow a firm to continue trading if they felt the firm were doing something wrong? Surely this would have repercussions on Sesame?

H