Endowment Mis-selling - Don't give up!

FOSman

defender_of_the_weak wrote:

If provider had to pay for the costs of heling with a claim I am afraid the feeding frenzy would be huge. What should happen is the removal of the non-existent time bar rule. at least then people would not be complaining because they feel they have to do it now and don't trust the big companies to treat them fairly.

Also for all those people who topped up their policy, as per the shortfall letter, only to find it was still no good, are now being shafted because it is more than 3 years since he first letter.

Botom line, big financial institutions are not run for the benefit of the public they are there to show a profit.

Actually, if a complainant tops up a policy after taking advice from a reprojection letter, as it contains a 'contractual review', the complainant is entitled to say that he did not have cause to complain about the advice, as the review would have alleyed any fears. Therefore, the letter would not be enough to give them cause for complain...and therefore, the complaint is not time-barred. So says FOSman!

(Every case is however looked at on its own individual merits)

FOSman

mickandsue wrote:

yes, but I want to know if the company advertising on TV is any good? They want 205+VAT for a successful claim

DON'T DO IT!! They don't help you at all. You can do all the complaining yourself for nothing. If the case reaches the FOS, then they will consider the entire case, even issues you have not complained about!!! I'm sure a few IFAs will vouch for that. You know who you are...CHURNERS!! :-)

FOSman

Kerr wrote:

Hello. Im about to wade through the many endowment post but maybe I could get some help before I start.

As a first time buyer in 1995 my girlfriend took out an endowment. She received a "red letter" in November 2000 saying she would not reach the expected amount. The letter came with 5 pieces of advice with the main one saying Wait. She waited for a promised second letter which has not appeared yet. Ive read that you only have 3 years after the first letter but 6 months after a second letter?. Is my understanding correct? Should she have received a second letter by now? Can she still complain. Cheers for any help as I spend a few hours reading whatever I can find.

If she has not received another red letter since the Nov 2000 and she complains, then she will be time barred. if she recieves another red letter tomorrow, then complains, she will have 6 more months so long as it is actually her second 'red' letter. The rules have become slightly more strict since June 04, but thats the gist of it. Hope that helps.

FOSman

supersub wrote:

New here and finding it very interesting. Thought I'd share my experience.
We complained to the Abbey National in January about an endowment they sold us in 1983 to cover a £25,000 mortgage increase. When they turned us down, we appealed, and that appeal is still pending.
In the meantime, of course, Abbey were heavily fined for their handling of endowment complaints.
Then we complained about another endowment sold to us by the Abbey in 1987 to cover a £10,000 mortgage increase. Our complaint was identical to the first.
Yesterday we received a letter from the Abbey offering us £1,200 compensation in respect of this second complaint. This was accompanied by baffling figures allegedly arriving at this figure.
Should we accept this figure straight away? I don't want to be greedy, but I'm afraid I have little trust in the Abbey now. We're convinced their response, certainly to our first complaint, was influenced by the fact that we moved our mortgage a few years back so are no longer mortgage customers of theirs (but maybe we're just naturally cynical - no longer the financial innocents we were when we took out these endowments!). Can we trust them with this offer?

If you want independant advice, take the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service. However, if they believe that the calculation was correct at the time it was done, that is all that will be on the table (assuming Abbey do not withdraw their offer). In the meantime, your SV will flucuate. If you don't want to keep the policy, surrender it and still complain. This will cap the level of compensation at the correct amount. If you are willing to keep the policy, then good luck to you, but don't expect to be compensated later if things get worse.

FOSman

mr._prude wrote:

My Dad was sold an edownment policy about1995/6 he was told there would be some surplus cash when it matured. It was his first mortage at he was 40/41, He has just been diagnosed with cancer, we just discovered the policy had no critical illness, that after 9 years it only 12% of the promise total. He might be cover for wavier of premium. Is there anything that can be done ?

Mr P

Doubt it. When he was speaking to the adviser, who at the time was probably trying to sell him everything under the sun, he probably didn't want it at the time. Unless you have documentary evidence that he specifically requested it at the time of advice, you ahven't got a chance. I do hope he get better though.

FOSman

Kantankrus_Mare wrote:

have had a result today from Standard Life!!!

£2500 for our second endowment which matures in 8 years which we are accepting.

Received the same amount off Nationwide for our first endowment so we are well chuffed!!

So thats £5000 off a £35,000 mortgage with 8 years still left to run.

Not going to make any rash decisions until demutualisation next year but not sure of the way forward from then..........whether to attempt to overpay a bit each month to bring the debt down even further or not sure if its worth cashing policies in and looking at other options to pay off remainder.

Guess we will have to wait and see what demutualisation brings.

In the meantime, your surrender value has been severly reduced by standard life because of the demutulisation!!! Get your SV! Serves you right though for being greedy!!! You complain that you were guaranteed the policy, that you weren't made aware of the risks, but now that you are aware, you're going to keep it!?! Shame on you.

FOSman

mazza245 wrote:

I'm sorry about this but we appear to have a problem which I can't find on this thread. We had two endowments, both with Norwich Union The first one I chose as I worked at the Skipton Building Society then and all the customers were taking them out, as the staff were promising lump sums on top of paying the mortgage off, the usual stuff. I think as I worked there, we didn't pay commission, so we thought we had done alright on that. That matured five years ago and we didn't do as well on it as we thought we would but it did go towards paying the mortgage off along with my husband's retirement 'pot'. We didn't complain as it was very early in all this and it didn't do that badly in the end.

When we moved to our next house, we took out a top-up one, again with Norwich Union, but just requested it through our solicitor (who has now retired, the company has disappeared). Although we heard about the shortfalls, we kept it on thinking we might still get a nice little nestegg at the end of it. All the letters from the company have shown it to be ticking over nicely and we still hoped for some kind of final bonus which would make it worth while. Now it is due to mature this August and the last letter showed a huge drop - actually reduced from the figures in the previous notification! This was taken out in 1985 so we have assumed that we will be unable to complain but reading some of these messages makes me think we might be able to after all! Can anyone advise whether it is worth trying to complain. The fact that there is no-one to blame (solicitor retired, etc.) - does that matter? We were definitely enticed by all the talk of lump sums, nice little nestegg and all that but I don't think we have any kind of documents proving it. I know the message seems to be - don't give up, keep trying but we haven't registered any sort of complaint at all up to now, does that mean it's too late, we have missed the boat? Before I go through what looks like a long procedure, I thought I would just see if anyone has any advice for us. Thanks.

A: I doubt you will be able to complain because its pre FSA (1988)
B: You had several previous policies, so one can assume that you knew how they worked
C: You worked for Skipton BS in the past!

The solicitor can be traced through the FOS, but from what I've heard so far, unless he did something seriously wrong, like churn a policy, then I doubt you've got much of a chance having your complaint upheld.

defender_of_the_weak

FOSman you have posted so many times I really do not know where to start. From your title I assume you are something to do with the Ombudsmans office but from the comments you are making I am not so sure as some them are wildly inaccurate.

Reprojection letters are not advice, they are a menu of options. Whether the client tops up or not the red letter sets the clock ticking for time barring. Companies can and will time bar people who have topped up. As will the Ombudsman office unless there are exceptional circumstances.

No the Ombudsmans office will not necessarily look at all the circumstances and I really doubt if some of the adjudicators hold even the most basic Financial Planning Certificate. Frankly some of the reviews we get back are rubbish and we have to send them for an Ombudsman ruling in the hope of finding someone who understands the issues

Kerr, who is the policy with? as not everyone time bars, who sold it to her and was the letter one containing the words high risk

Mr Prude
Get a copy of the consultants report and fact find from the time of the sale. The onus is on the adviser to advice not for your dad to ask for something. Was it identified as a risk at the time of the sale and where there valid reasons for not taking critical illness.
Havent got a chance! Not true

EdInvestor

FOSman wrote:

In the meantime, your surrender value has been severly reduced by standard life because of the demutulisation!!!

This is incorrect.Standard Life surrender values are reduced because of cuts in the terminal bonus, which reflect the stock market crash in 2001-2002, in which the value of With prfofit funds all over the industrry slimped. In addition, the former directors at SL misjudged the way the markets would react and lost a considerable chunk of the company's free assets. The demutualisation provides the opportunity for the company to raise new capital to replace some of these losses and those of its members.

Serves you right though for being greedy!!! You complain that you were guaranteed the policy, that you weren't made aware of the risks, but now that you are aware, you're going to keep it!?! Shame on you.

KM is doing exactly the right thing.Possibly FOSman does not quite understand the rather complicated structure of With profit funds and mutual assurers.

EdInvestor

FOSman wrote:

A: I doubt you will be able to complain because its pre FSA (1988)
The solicitor can be traced through the FOS, but from what I've heard so far, unless he did something seriously wrong, like churn a policy, then I doubt you've got much of a chance having your complaint upheld.

You need to show negligence for pre 1988 complaints

Law Society guidance to solicitors on endowment misselling