Endowment Mis-selling - Don't give up!

the_doctor_2

Many thanks for replying to my post!

Does the FOS take "verbal" advice into account when conducting their work?

I have received my FPQ from the IFA and it does not record certain statements which I considered as his professional advice (he was being paid for this service!).

My problem is that when he verbally stated that the final figure would be achieved I disregarded the written "under and over performance figures!

Do I have a chance with this

The Doctor

dunstonh

the_doctor wrote:

Many thanks for replying to my post!

Does the FOS take "verbal" advice into account when conducting their work?

I have received my FPQ from the IFA and it does not record certain statements which I considered as his professional advice (he was being paid for this service!).

My problem is that when he verbally stated that the final figure would be achieved I disregarded the written "under and over performance figures!

Do I have a chance with this

The Doctor

Your word against his. If there wasnt written documentation, they may have sided with you but if the opposite is documented then I would say it is unlikley.

scottishlizzie

bill wrote:

Thanks Lizzie,
Now the BS is saying they can't release my file till they have the permission of everyone who is in it. Sounds like Bullshine to me :mad:
I have a copy of the Microfiche off the Insurance company but it does not mention that it was the BS who sold it to me on their behalf. Any ideas?
Bill :beer:

Bill,

If the BS were tied to the insurance company (sounds like it) then you should complain to the insurance company as they are responsible for the investment advice given by their tied agents.

What you need to do is get your complaint in direct to Royal Sun Alliance and they will investigate it if it was sold by their tied agent (the BS). If the BS was not tied to them and was an IFA then you will need to pursue the BS directly.

All insurance companies have complaints departments specifically for dealing with endowment complaints and they will have a set process which is monitored by the regulator (FSA).

By all means ask for your file but don't delay making your complaint until you have it. It is probably more important to have the file if they reject your complaint in which case you would want to see relevant documentation for your appeal to the Financial Ombudsman.

They do not have to give you the entire file but they do have to let you have copies of all documents containing personal information about you. The main documents you want to see if you need to appeal are the proposal form and the fact find. And they don't need anyone else's permission unless the plan was originally joint but has since been alter to single life/policyholder status, in which case they may need to conceal information relating to the other party.

scottishlizzie

the_doctor wrote:

Many thanks for replying to my post!

Does the FOS take "verbal" advice into account when conducting their work?

I have received my FPQ from the IFA and it does not record certain statements which I considered as his professional advice (he was being paid for this service!).

My problem is that when he verbally stated that the final figure would be achieved I disregarded the written "under and over performance figures!

Do I have a chance with this

The Doctor

Just because he showed you an illustration containing over and under performance figures, this is not necessarily enough for him to defend the complaint. He should be able to point to written confirmation in the fact find or in a separate letter which shows: that you were advised specifically that returns were not guaranteed and there was a possibility of a shortfall, that your attitude to risk was appropriate for a plan of this nature and that alternative repayment methods were discussed along with a note of why you went for an endowment. This may seem perverse/unfair on the IFA but it is the standards that insurance companies are expected to satisfy when they are defending complaints and the regulator (FSA) should treat complaints about IFAs in the same way.

I think I have said before on this thread or another that IFAs reject a proportionately higher number of complaints than insurance companies. There are a few reasons for this but the principal ones (assuming the complaint is justified in the first place) are that if the individual IFA gave the advice then he is more likely to be personally defensive about it plus any compensation will be coming out of his profits.

My advice would be to press ahead with the complaint to the IFA, exhaust his complaint process and if you genuinely feel you have a validd case then appeal to the Financial Ombudsman.

Good luck.

dunstonh

I think I have said before on this thread or another that IFAs reject a proportionately higher number of complaints than insurance companies. There are a few reasons for this but the principal ones (assuming the complaint is justified in the first place) are that if the individual IFA gave the advice then he is more likely to be personally defensive about it plus any compensation will be coming out of his profits.

IFAs themselves do not reject the complaint. The PI company providing liability cover or the network (depending on set-up) will handle the complaint. The main reason I would suggest that higher numbers are rejected is that IFA suitability reports generally tend to be better written and make less use of "scripted paragraphs".

I can relate that to my personal experiences with two tied companies prior to becoming an IFA. Both tied company reason why letters/suitablity reports would be considered woefully inadequate by IFA standards.

scottishlizzie

dunstonh wrote:

IFAs themselves do not reject the complaint. The PI company providing liability cover or the network (depending on set-up) will handle the complaint. The main reason I would suggest that higher numbers are rejected is that IFA suitability reports generally tend to be better written and make less use of "scripted paragraphs".

I can relate that to my personal experiences with two tied companies prior to becoming an IFA. Both tied company reason why letters/suitablity reports would be considered woefully inadequate by IFA standards.

In my experience, even if the IFA suitability report is not adequate, IFAs are more likely to reject complaint in the first instance.

However, I do agree that you are more likely to find an adequate reason why letter/suitability report on an IFA file than with a tied agent for the very reasons dunstonh states.

bill_3-2

Thanks Lizzie,
I think the BS was the Agent for the Insurance company, Ie on commission I'll bet at the time. No the plan has never changed. I think the BS knows what it did and is waitnig for the Insurance Comp to send what they have. I already have stuff from the Insurance which is the same as what i have.
many thanks
bill

Janeryan

I started my complaint with Legal & General in Sept 2004.

We bought 2 endowment policies (£2180.00 & £25250.00) in Feb 1987 sold to us by a tied agent who never said anyhting about it not covering the mortgage at the end.

We having been receiving update letters since 2002 which have out us on Amber alert(eg significant risk of shortfall)

The last one was in November 2004 which said the larger one is still on amber but the smaller one is on track to pay out.

Recd offer from L & G yesterday saying no redress to pay on larger one and "offering" us £1306.00 on smaller policy.

In actuality£1230.00 of that amount is the surrender value of the policy which we would get anyway so their actual offer is the princely sum of £75.00!!!

Am about to ring them up so will update you later.

dunstonh

in 1987 endowment mortgages would have been cheaper than repayment mortgages. Plus you qualified for full MIRAS on the balance. You would have got less relief with a repayment mortgage. Its quite possible that the repayment mortgage over the term would have averaged out to be more expensive and that is why no redress is due.

Janeryan

dunstonh wrote:

in 1987 endowment mortgages would have been cheaper than repayment mortgages. Plus you qualified for full MIRAS on the balance. You would have got less relief with a repayment mortgage. Its quite possible that the repayment mortgage over the term would have averaged out to be more expensive and that is why no redress is due.

Thanks for that.

Rang L & G as what I can't understand is if both policies were bought at same time why one gets redress and the other doesn't.

Also pointed out misleading offer statement.

They are going to refer it back to the Technical team as they weren't sure either-so that's another 6 month wait I expect!

Also rang the FOS who took details from me as they say they can do the calculations to check that L & G have got it right.

I'm not in this to make money & if they say that we haven;t been financially disadvantaged then fine-what I don't understand is that they are treating the policies differently.

Any thoughts on that one?