Endowment Mis-selling - Don't give up!

dunstonh

EdInvestor wrote:

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.

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

I'm sure FOS is being cynical in his response. Although SL would never say bonuses were reduced because of DM, it does seem strange that SL terminal bonuses are reducing at a time when others are increasing. OK, SL did mess up their investment strategy but it is easy for the cynic to say what FOS did.

Personally, I think there is an element of truth in it. SL have to be expecting a massive number of surrenders after demutualization. So, they have started budgeting for it now. If it doesn't happen, they can add the bonuses back in later and claim that the increases are due to DM. If it does happen, it means that they dont lose a chunk of the DM benefits on paying out surrender values.

Many reductions in the bonus are by around the amount people are "likely" to get from DM.

FOSman

defender_of_the_weak wrote:

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

I'm sorry Defender, I should have made that post clearer. If a re-projection letter has a contractual review which offers re-assurance of the performance of the policy, then depending on the wording in the letter, an Ombudsman may decide that it would not be sufficient to start the clock. By the way, the firm can kick and scream time bar all it likes, but if an Ombudsman writes a final decision saying that the complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the FOS, then they will look at the complaint.

FOSman

EdInvestor wrote:

You need to show negligence for pre 1988 complaints

Law Society guidance to solicitors on endowment misselling

Yes, it all depends on who they were regulated by. Law Soc, PIA, FIMBRA etc...

FOSman

EdInvestor wrote:

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.



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

I do apologise, I am fairly cynical on this issue. Unofficially, SL have said that terminal bonuses and SV have been reduced recently (July/August) because they are preparing for demutulaisation. Now whether its some misguided fool at SL, or whether he was more honest than he should have been, this is what I have been told.

EdInvestor

dunstonh wrote:

OK, SL did mess up their investment strategy..

Mess it up? You call losing 8bn quid out of the firm's total capital of 10bn quid -that's our money- messing it up?I call it an unmitigated disaster - if Standard Life wasn't a mutual, the entire management would have been out on their ar$es like the Marconi idiots and good riddance to the lot of them!

I'm afraid members have just got to accept that the money for the TBs has gone.It has not been there for 2 years, but because of "smoothing", it has been removed gradually.

But as I have said, the DM will enable Standard to raise new capital to replace the 8bn quid we lost.The new management is trying very hard to restore the company to health and they're doing pretty well so far .This week the City was saying they reckon it's now worth nearly 7bn quid and rising, with a year to go to DM - at the bottom they thought it was only worth 3bn

Fingers crossed that the stockmarket keeps going up over the next year and the value gets to 10bn or so - that still won't completely replace people's losses but it will be a great deal better than a poke in the eye....

FOSman

"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"

I can assure you that Adjudicators should and in the majority of cases do consider all circumstances in a complaint. If they do not comment on certain issues, it may be because they do not feel it is relevant enough to sway their view. As you are aware, if you are not happy with an Adjudicator's view, you can have it and the case reviewed by an Ombudsman. You will certainly get a far more comprehensive view on the complaint. But you have to remember that adjudicators are there to sift through the cases, and make initial views. If you believe that they have missed something, or not covered something in greater detail, write back or call them. All adjudicators can and do reverse their views if more new points are raised or evidence is brought to light.

I take it defender you work for a 3rd party claims handler? :beer:

defender_of_the_weak

No, I dont work, for I am the third party complaint handler, I own the company.

In the last year my company has had an uphold rate of 88% for cases filed with FOS against a norm of 55-70 % dependent on who you want to believe for statistics.

Given that a recent letter stated ' I am not technicallysufficientl to consider the issues in question and job adverts include the words 'financail planning experience an advantage but not essential you will understand my concerns.

What happens to all the memebers of the public who have their case 'sifted' by someone who is incompetent and accepts the decision?

FOSman

defender_of_the_weak wrote:

No, I dont work, for I am the third party complaint handler, I own the company.

In the last year my company has had an uphold rate of 88% for cases filed with FOS against a norm of 55-70 % dependent on who you want to believe for statistics.

Given that a recent letter stated ' I am not technicallysufficientl to consider the issues in question and job adverts include the words 'financail planning experience an advantage but not essential you will understand my concerns.

What happens to all the memebers of the public who have their case 'sifted' by someone who is incompetent and accepts the decision?

The reason why they don't require extensive financial experience is because they would prefer to train people to their way of thinking. There are a large number of senior adjudicators who all have 20+ years experience in the industry. They have seen these policies being mis-sold first hand and know all the little tricks that used to go on. No view written by a junior adjudicator goes out of the door before it is checked by a senior adjudicator. And the last thing an adjudicator wants is an Ombudsman to go against an adjudicators view.

It is fantastic to hear that your firm has such a success rate. I presume that the reason being is that you do not, or will not, represent any complainant. Do you turn away complainants who you believe are lying or just doing it to see what they can get?

defender_of_the_weak

FOSman, you and I will have to agree to disagree on the quality issue. I thonk our success rate is down to number of issues:

If we think someone is being a little economical with some of the facts we will usually ask the company for the paperwork, based on a quasi formal complaint. If it turns up and does not support the case we normally drop it there unless the client can provide further explanation.

If we complain to an IFA we actually ask them to send the paperwork in support of any rejection and tell them in the complaint letter that we would rather they reject will full paperwork then send some load of pompous bluster with no evidence so we have to go to FOS (Some IFAs really truggle to get their heads round this one). Beyond that, if we think people have case we argue it

FOSman

defender_of_the_weak wrote:

FOSman, you and I will have to agree to disagree on the quality issue. I thonk our success rate is down to number of issues:

If we think someone is being a little economical with some of the facts we will usually ask the company for the paperwork, based on a quasi formal complaint. If it turns up and does not support the case we normally drop it there unless the client can provide further explanation.

If we complain to an IFA we actually ask them to send the paperwork in support of any rejection and tell them in the complaint letter that we would rather they reject will full paperwork then send some load of pompous bluster with no evidence so we have to go to FOS (Some IFAs really truggle to get their heads round this one). Beyond that, if we think people have case we argue it

I think the approach you have with IFAs is a good one. I'm an IFA specialist so I know how poor their complaint investigations can be. I must point out however that allot of IFAs are 'one man bands', some of which are now retired, and they just don't have the resources the big boys do.

Also in the early 90s, IFAs were under no obligation to hold on to their files for more than 6 years. If they haven't kept their files, it is very hard to hold that against them.

However, I'm pleased to hear that you are selective with who you represent. That can only help the whole complaints process and industry.

Little known fact, 60-70% of all complaints against IFAs are rejected by the FOS. This is down to the large number of complaints that reach the FOS because of poor investigations carried out by IFAs that leave complainants unsatisfied.