Endowment Mis-selling - Don't give up!

robin1306

Ok, just thought I'd recount me experiences. I called the FSA and had a long chat with an 'advisor' who told me that as my Endowment was taken out in 87 I wouldn't have a case and I got the impression that I should go away and change my mortgage to a repayment. Not put off I shopped around for someone who could help me. Some firms were willing to charge 40% plus VAt of any compensation but the main thing was they all thought I had a case. Anyway I found a company who charged the consumers association £50 flat fee plus VAT and charged 15% of any compensation. So after having been told by the FSA there was no way I would qualify I won my case against Bradford & bingley who were now responsible for selling me the endowment ion the firsst place. The moral of the story don't give up even if the FSA say you don't have a case.

AMH999

Hi, my father bought an endowment in 1987 and I filled in the Employment Action letter for him and sent it off to Pearl. They sent a form out for him to fill in, only two days later sent a cryptic letter saying that there is no fact find as it was before 1988. Can anyone tell me what this means and can he still claim or not?
many thanks!

moonshine386

Many thanks again dunstonh. I will complain again to the seller. Regards, Geoff

defender_of_the_weak

No fact find means they have no paperwork to dispute or deny your fathers claim. Accept no guff on this and if it is rejected take it to the FOS

Garry_Anderson

Who finances the Ombudsman and the FSA?

dunstonh wrote:

They are basically Govt departments but financed by the financial services industry by the way of levies and fines. As I have mentioned before on here, in many cases today, it is the decent firms still around that are paying the complaints and compensation of those who have left or have been forced out.

Please allow me to correct you Dunston.

I know a bit about the FSA - having won official complaint against them for "unprofessional lack of integrity" - do not trust them.

The FSA are ultimately financed by us - the customers.

And guess who pays the massive fines that corrupt firms pay when they caught out - e.g. Abbey National fined £800,000 for mishandling mortgage endowment complaints?

Yep, the fines are also paid by us.

Have you caught on what is happening yet?

It is really quite easy to understand.

dunstonh

Please allow me to correct you Dunston.

It's not a correction. The companies do pay the levies. I should know, it goes out of my bank account every year.

However, I do see where you are coming from. Any charge/cost to a company does find it's way being passed to the consumer at the end of the day. That is normal in any class of business.

This is perhaps where the system fails. Companies with lower overheads tend to offer better pricing. However, if you lumber the better advice companies with the liabilities of the bad ones, you push the price up across the board. The good advice companies should not have to subsidise the bad ones. The bad ones should be hit with higher fines. Unless you hit them in the pocket, there is no incentive for them to stop.

Garry_Anderson

dunstonh wrote:

It's not a correction. ...

However, I do see where you are coming from.

You see where I am coming from?

Sorry - it was not simply a matter of perception or spin.

It was a correction - it was a matter of factual accuracy.

The customers gets defrauded (or whatever you want to call it for sake of the cover-up) - then customers end up paying the fines for them.

It is perversity and not justice.

Those that did the wrong-doing should pay for it - not simply take money from the same source to pay for it.

Ideally, in my opinion, they should pay for their crime with a spell in jail.

Saying, "Any charge/cost to a company does find it's way being passed to the consumer at the end of the day. That is normal in any class of business" is a poor excuse for letting them get away with this perversity.

dunstonh

It was a correction - it was a matter of factual accuracy.

How on earth can it be a matter of factual accuracy? How many consumers have written a cheque to the FSA? The factually accurate statement is that the FSA is funded by the financial services companies.

It is perversity and not justice.

Of course it is. Why should good advisors/companies pay for the bad ones?

Garry_Anderson

dunstonh wrote:

How on earth can it be a matter of factual accuracy? How many consumers have written a cheque to the FSA? The factually accurate statement is that the FSA is funded by the financial services companies.

I wrote: "The FSA are ultimately financed by us - the customers" - that is the accurate statement of fact.

You are not an imbecile - how is it not factually accurate?

P.S. The real perversity is that customers are screwed by corrupt finance companies and their customers pay their fines.

MattOsprey

Just received a letter from Zurich, saying that there is a claim possible. And they would calculate from the 3 year discount i had, then svr. I changed the mortgage for another deal that was better than the svr but with another bank. Will the banks give me the old details? Do they have to? Thanks for any advice. Also wondering if anyone has been paid compo from Z for a £40,000 endowment starting in 1999. If so do you know roughly the ammount of compo.