Endowment Mis-selling - Don't give up!

dunstonh

Ah I see now. If NU say something, it is correct! I thought it was just that they didn't want to pay up!

If NU say someone didnt work for them and the FOS agree it then you do have to accept that it is likely to be correct. I place business with NU but it doesnt make me an NU employee.

My mortgage is the Abbey. When I originally complained to NU they told me that Abbey were the agents who sold me the policy. Obviously I then had to contact them about the matter. Apparently, they were agents for NU at a later date but not at the time I took out the policy.

Right, so Abbey have nothing to do with it and are not in a position to comment on who sold it.

They saw all the documentation pertaining to the sale of the policy. Presumably, like me, they also thought that if you had a letter on NU headed paper advising you to take out the policy, that it was NU who were selling it!

You are dropping bits of new, conflicting information in now. If you have evidence of NU providing the advice (rather than corrospondance enclosing documents or giving out factual information), then why have you not presented that as proof in your claim?

Nuuk

If NU say someone didnt work for them and the FOS agree it then you do have to accept that it is likely to be correct. I place business with NU but it doesnt make me an NU employee.

NU told the FOS that they did have an employee, of the name that I provided, working for them at the time I was sold my policy. But (rather conveniently) they have lost some records and can't confirm if he was a salesman or not.

If you have evidence of NU providing the advice (rather than corrospondance enclosing documents or giving out factual information), then why have you not presented that as proof in your claim?

All this was given to the adjudictaor at the FOS.

wilburpig

vinno65 wrote:

Hi Wilburpig, have they even investigated the complaint?
Let us know and we will try to help,
Also on what basis are you deemed out of time?
regrads Vinno

The letter says:

I regret to inform you, however, that you are out of time to make your complaint and, as a result, you have lost your right to any compensation to which you may have been entitled. Also, because we recieved your complaint after 15th November 2005, we have a right to object to the Financial Ombudsman Service considering the merits of your dispute with us and we intend to exercise our right to so object.

We made you aware, in our letter of 06 December 2004 that, if you had any concerns about the sale of your policy, you had until 15 November 2005 in which to register a complant with Friends Provident. I have enclosed a copy of that lette for your information.

As your complaint was not received until 30 May 2006 it is out of time and I confirm that I will be taking no further action in respect of this policy.

The policy was taken out in November 1994 and is currently predicted to fall short. Policy target amount £70000, predicted value at 5.5% £44,700

dreamylittledream

wilburpig wrote:

The letter says:

I regret to inform you, however, that you are out of time to make your complaint and, as a result, you have lost your right to any compensation to which you may have been entitled. Also, because we recieved your complaint after 15th November 2005, we have a right to object to the Financial Ombudsman Service considering the merits of your dispute with us and we intend to exercise our right to so object.

We made you aware, in our letter of 06 December 2004 that, if you had any concerns about the sale of your policy, you had until 15 November 2005 in which to register a complant with Friends Provident. I have enclosed a copy of that lette for your information.

As your complaint was not received until 30 May 2006 it is out of time and I confirm that I will be taking no further action in respect of this policy.

The policy was taken out in November 1994 and is currently predicted to fall short. Policy target amount £70000, predicted value at 5.5% £44,700

You're actually being 'timebarred' on the contents of the 2002 reprojection letter you received (as you have three years from the first warning there is a risk the policy may not make its target amount in which to make a complaint).

The FOS currently agree with this stance unless you can

a) prove you never recieved the letters

or

b) Have exceptional circumstances that prevented you from complaining until after the time limit expired.

You still also have the right to court action - however bearing in mind you received a letter in 2004 which explicitly stated your right to complaint would expire in November 2005 it is unlikely this would suceed in court on any 'reasonableness' test.

(the recent success in court enjoyed by vinno65 was based on a reprojection letter issued in 2000 which did not include any such warning of right to complain expiring - correct me if I'm wrong vinno)

So unfortuntatly it looks like your options are limited.

dunstonh

FP did say in a response to Vinno's case that they felt the later letter was strong enough to base the time bar on and would rely on that in future. In this case, they do seem to have followed time bar rules by giving a clear date to which you must complain by.

vinno65

Firstly they should still investigate your case, then can then if they wish time bar you and time bar you from refererring to the FOS. Quote them FSA DISP rule 2.3.1 R (2). This states that the FOS can look at complaints in exeptional circumstances, how do FP know that these don't exist?
Also you could ask them to explain exactly where they got their 15 november 2005 date from? I had one of these aswell but could not place it with any previous correspondance recieved from them!.
If they do finally investigate your case and admit miss-selling then I am afraid that court action is your only recourse. It would be then up to you to argue against the merits of these red letters. The one I recieved in 2002 (which will be the one I presume FP are trying to time bar you on) was basically the same as the one they sent in 2000, the only difference being that they had dropped the advice to "wait and see". You could argue that it was the letter recieved in 2004 warning of dealines (which the ones in 2002 did not) that should start the clock ticking. This way you would have until Dec 2007 to start court action. If you take them to court, they have said in press releases that they will defend any actions vigorously, but will they?Do they want to go through the whole shambles again.
So first thing is to try and get them to investigate your complaint, as after all you may not have been miss-sold so they would have no case to answer but you need them to tell you one way or the other.
regards Vinno.

ps for dreamylittledream
yes in my case they relied on the 2000 letters and these did not have any warnings, but the 2002 ones don't either. It was not until after the rulen change in may 2004 that firms were required to put a date on complaint letters by which to complain by.

Wheelie_2

Hi, could anyone give me a little advice.

I have complained about my endowment with Zurich and they have wrote back to say they think compensation may be due but are looking for more details. One of the things they are asking is if I have switched the mortgage which this endowment was supporting. I moved the mortgage to an off-set mortgage with the One Account about 18 months ago, but have been keeping the endowment going as it gives some life assurance and would be an investment (it annoyed me that I would get less back if I surrended it than I had paid in).

Should I tell Zurich about this? Could this affect the compensation paid out?

They have said that if I do not reply they will work out the compensation based on their assumptions and calculations.

dunstonh

Should I tell Zurich about this? Could this affect the compensation paid out?

You should tell them and yes it will affect the compensation. Although given the last few weeks stockmarket volatility, it wont be a lot different.

cazarol

I bought an endowment in 1986 and just wondered if it is worth trying to pursue a claim for being mis sold. I was definitely mis sold it but wondered if it is worthwhile following it up due to th date?
Thanks

dunstonh

I bought an endowment in 1986 and just wondered if it is worth trying to pursue a claim for being mis sold. I was definitely mis sold it but wondered if it is worthwhile following it up due to th date?

If sold by a bank or an insurer, they often will consider pre 1988 cases. If sold by an independent or not-employed tied adviser, then it is rare for those to be considered.