Should I accept endowment payout but add a caveat?

holly_hobby

Low start (rising prems) is different to the generic compairson between an endowment and capital repayment mge which you have posted - which is non-specific to you, and has no bearing to your own indiviudal costings.

holly_hobby

Full endowments are of course gted to meet the target sum, whilst LCEs aren't.

However, the leaflet makes no differential between the 2 types of policy, and discusses endowments generically just using the term "endowment), in relation to acting as a mge repayment vehicle. To which, as stated earlier, I think it may be considered ambigious enough (esp for a layman), and could be argued to be far from transparent in differentiating between the fundamental differences between the 2 types of product, for FOS to uphold on a gte if FP reject.

Only one way to find out ....

H x

Frances63

Magpiecottage - Thanks so much for your comments.
I didn't know about A.N. not being tied to F.P. until 1988. I thought the rep effectively was tied to both, only because of something I read on another thread on this website. But it is very helpful to find out from you that they were at the time a member of the B.S.O.S. (my abbreviation, I don't know if it's correct). That could be useful if A.N. come back to me with half a story.....

Hollyhobby - Thanks for sticking with me. I found a kind of large till receipt type document which I think is my specific quote. Unfortunately it has faded to the point of becoming illegible. Apart from the A.N. rep's name on a gold sticker which is still stuck on it.

Frances63

holly_hobby wrote: »

Full endowments are of course gted to meet the target sum, whilst LCEs aren't.

However, the leaflet makes no differential between the 2 types of policy, and discusses endowments generically just using the term "endowment), in relation to acting as a mge repayment vehicle. To which, as stated earlier, I think it may be considered ambigious enough (esp for a layman), and could be argued to be far from transparent in differentiating between the fundamental differences between the 2 types of product, for FOS to uphold on a gte if FP reject.

Only one way to find out ....

H x

Sorry my last post crossed in the ether with this one so I didn't acknowledge. There was definately no question at the time that the mortgage amount wasn't guaranteed. Looking back I feel the rep genuinely believed it was too.

The leaflets certainly don't give any hint that that wasn't the case, however there is a caveat about the cash surplus being based on currrent estimates, which in hindsight would lead you to believe that their ought to have been some kind of warning about the 'target' amount too if it wasn't guaranteed.

dunstonh

There has to be a risk warning of some sort on there or an indication that the figure could pay back less. The wording on pre 88 cases would vary between providers but if there is no text on that document or the illustration (illustration is considered more important than the key features document in general) then you would think they would have a hard time supporting the case. Documentation is King in a complaint like this. So, assuming the timebar is overruled and Santander have pre-regulation liability, you can't see them being able to decline the complaint (unless the personal illustration covers the risk warnings).

neverdespairgirl

Frances63 wrote: »

Yes word for word. I'm going to try to upload a photo of that part of the leaflet. It might help other people too.

I only said 'inferred' that it was guaranteed because I can't see the actual word guarantee, which is what I was told, but those words above ("Interest is paid to the Society and an endowment policy is taken out which repays the amount borrowed at the end of the loan"), as you say, amount to a guarantee I believe.

You mean "implied". There is a definite difference. If I say, "when did you stop beating your wife?" I am implying that you used to beat your wife, and you might infer that I mean that.

Frances63

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

You mean "implied". There is a definite difference. If I say, "when did you stop beating your wife?" I am implying that you used to beat your wife, and you might infer that I mean that.

You're absolutely right, I should have said "implied". Thanks, that will help me when I fill out Santander's questionnaire today.

Frances63

dunstonh wrote: »

There has to be a risk warning of some sort on there or an indication that the figure could pay back less. The wording on pre 88 cases would vary between providers but if there is no text on that document or the illustration (illustration is considered more important than the key features document in general) then you would think they would have a hard time supporting the case. Documentation is King in a complaint like this. So, assuming the timebar is overruled and Santander have pre-regulation liability, you can't see them being able to decline the complaint (unless the personal illustration covers the risk warnings).

Thank you. It's good to know I have a chance. Is the illustration the 'large till receipt' type printout that I have but that has faded? I am trying to decipher it but can't make much out. I can see the word 'Frentel' or could be 'Prentel'? Is that the name of their gadget? Is it the 'Viewdata' that they mention in the leaflet? (First photo above). It looks like a comparison.

dunstonh

Is the illustration the 'large till receipt' type printout that I have but that has faded?

Back then, many of them would have been issued using bubblejet printers or similar ink style printers. Fading is something that you do often see.

It would show the amount you pay, target figure, example projections and a selection of key risk warnings.

holly_hobby

dunstonh wrote: »

There has to be a risk warning of some sort on there or an indication that the figure could pay back less. The wording on pre 88 cases would vary between providers but if there is no text on that document or the illustration (illustration is considered more important than the key features document in general) then you would think they would have a hard time supporting the case. Documentation is King in a complaint like this. So, assuming the timebar is overruled and Santander have pre-regulation liability, you can't see them being able to decline the complaint (unless the personal illustration covers the risk warnings).

Yep, as I say the leaflet is ambiguous in that it discuses simply an endowment mge and its repayment of the loan.

Of course a full endowment will meet the target amount - so in that respect the leaflet is technically correct .

However, a low cost endowment (which from late 80s was a typical mge repayment vehicle, and which was sold by the AN rep in this case) does not - the anomoly here is that this leaflet does not distinguish or discuss the 2 types of endowment which may be used to repay a mge and which they offer (full or low cost), and the fundamental differences in risk between the 2 - and given that the leaflet was for the layman consumer (who wouldn't necessarily be aware of the different types or differences), and where ANs marketing (and legal) dept have royally c**ked right up !!

So, any defence will have to hinge on the POS docs demonstrating risk, which were client specific and presented for review at POS. Albeit for pre A day (and if the docs have survived the passage of time), there will only be an illustration, application, and copy policy docs from archieve, and thats if they can't get away with a time bar re the address change issue and alleged none receipt of any red EMVs.

From what I have read, and unless the POS docs (which we haven't seen and the OP although requested to, hasn't published or discussed the wording), illustrates the target sum was not gted under a low cost endowment, I would expect any defence by the Firm to be overturned on adjuication ....

I say expect, but FOS having been making some funny old decisions lately, and the defence could be that as you clearly admit budet was tight (hence the low start policy), you couldn't have afforded and wouldn't have taken a repayment mge even if offered to you at POS, and thereby an interest only mge backed by a low start low cost endowment, was both suitable and affordable to your circs - BUT this is a suitability assessment.

What you need to keep in mind (and is the strongest aspect of this) is that your complaint is essentially about the mis-representation of the terms/risk profile of the policy, IF as I say your POS docs do not indicate or state anywhere, that the target amount of the low cost endowment was not gted, and could be lower than anticipated at maturity.

Time will tell on this one .... wish you well amigo !

Holly x