Endowment Mis-selling - Don't give up!

shaunyboy_2

Hi,

I am hoping somebody out there could help me with my parents’ endowment shortfall, and what they can do next. 18 months ago my parents went through the process of complaining about a mis-sold endowment mortgage that they set up years ago. The actual endowment fell short of its target by nearly £25,000 – half of their outstanding mortgage.

The company they took out the mortgage with no longer exists, so they went through another company who acted on their behalf to see if they could get any form of compensation ( I do not think they went through the FCSC that is mentioned on this website).

1 week ago, this company finally got back in touch with my parents and told them they were not entitled to any compensation at all. They were also told they can appeal this through an ombudsman.

Could anybody help me, and especially my parents, on what to do next? I am not entirely sure that this so-called company went through the proper process, and if so, can I still appeal from the start straight to the FCSC?

Any help whatsoever will be much appreciated.

Thanks.

toblerone_2

:mad:i read your thread with interest cos mine was pre 1989 as well.we went in for a mortgage and was persuaded that an endowment was the thing to have.the advisor said i have to read you this legal jargon but basically ignore it cos its just that ..a load of waffle.she read how we might not get enough to pay back but then said but that never ever happens.they always pay up in fact you will be left with a nice little nest egg and will probably have enough money to go abroad or do something really nice like get a new car.like lambs to the slaughter we niavely listened and beleived every word.now we may face a short fall of 12,000 plus.do you reckon we have a claim or are we stuffed like you seem to be?

Poppy9 wrote:

At least you lot can complain to someone and have a chance of compensation. In my early 20's I took out an endowment in 1985. We had a mortgage for £17k and I have the original letter showing that the endowment mortgage repayments were more expensive than repayment - but we would have a £17k surplus with the endowment at the end of the mortgage. Therefore we were told paying just £3.50 per month more would generate us a nice little nest egg if we went the endowment route. Well now Standard life tell us we will have a £3k shortfall!

I tried the ombudsmen but because it's pre 1986 we can't complain. Wrote to my MP who passed it on to some minister responsible for the fiasco - received a letter saying hard luck basically.

Can't have the company that sold it to me for bad advice as it was an Estate Agents (Parkhurst, Swansea) who no longer exist. I can't find out whether the estate agents occupying the premises now (Peter Allan - part of principality bs I think) took over the business or just the premises.

Also have another endowment took out in 1995. I was a bit nervous as heard some bad rumours but was told it was the right thing for us as we had 1 endowment already and that was guaranteed to pay off mortgage!

Now we have a potential £6k shortfall on a £35k mortgage. To address this I have taken out an ISA.

I feel very aggrieved at the cut off point for the first mortgage especially when standard life send me warning letters with how to complain on!

Dumbblonde_3

I am glad it's not just me that has been turned down for mis-sold endowment compensation.

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

This is exactly what I received from Friends Provident, whose representative mis-sold me an endowment policy in 1989.Undeterred, I downloaded letters and questionnaires from Martin Lewis web pages and sent all relevant details to the Financial Ombudsman who investigated and came back with the same reply - that I had missed the deadline by two months and could only take things further if there were any extreme circumstances why I had applied so late. My only excuse is ignorance. I read the warning letters and filed them away not really understanding what they meant. I didn't know I could do something about them - not until I started getting Martin Lewis web site and reading what I should be doing. At least I tried and I am grateful that my endowment is not part of a mortgage anymore.

I think i'll just go and change my hair colour, maybe that will make me take more notice of important letters. I doubt it. :mad: :mad:

vinno65

Hi Dumblonde,
Looks like you have been time barred on a pre 2004 red letter. I recently won a court case agains FP where a red letter from 2000 was rejected by the court for starting the clock ticking. The letters they sent out in 2002 (the one which presumably time bars you) were very similar. The Consumers Association and one of the claimhandling firms are thinking of taking the FSA/FOS to court to have complaints rejected on the basis of these early red letters re-opened, so keep an eye on these boards and in the press for any developments as you may still get redress if miss-sold
regards Vinno

mcgsp

My wife and I bought an endowment in 1986 and have been refused compensation as, according to the insurance company we were not given advice.
We replied by sending them the optimistic general literature from them showing a likely large surplus and an individual prospectus for our policy also showing a large surplus. We pointed out that it was checked verbally that we would be able to continue paying even after I retired and it was confirmed that we did not need to sell our existing endowment policy.

The company wants us to contact them by phone as the information about the literature, retirement date and not selling the previous endowment "does not necessarily mean that advice was given".

Does anyone have any advice on how we should respond?

dunstonh

mcgsp wrote:

My wife and I bought an endowment in 1986 and have been refused compensation as, according to the insurance company we were not given advice.
We replied by sending them the optimistic general literature from them showing a likely large surplus and an individual prospectus for our policy also showing a large surplus. We pointed out that it was checked verbally that we would be able to continue paying even after I retired and it was confirmed that we did not need to sell our existing endowment policy.

The company wants us to contact them by phone as the information about the literature, retirement date and not selling the previous endowment "does not necessarily mean that advice was given".

Does anyone have any advice on how we should respond?

Documentation on products, such as illustrations and key feature documents/brochures does not indicate advice. They are given out on execution only basis as well as advice basis. They are probably finding out if you have documentation that is non standard, such as adviser notes or comments, which would work in your favour rather than the general documentation, which wouldn't.

mcgsp

The brochure we received when we were taking out our endowment policy in 1986 was nearly all advert: it showed league tables (the insurance company just happened to be the top performer for 20 year policies - the period we were looking at) and gave diagrams showing surpluses with a small section in smaller print giving a few details about the product. It never mentioned how bonuses were generated. It never mentioned stocks and shares. There was no disclaimer warning that the document did not constitute advice and there was no reference to seeking independent advice.

We were naive as, I suspect, were most other people taking out endowments in 1986 and we certainly took the brochure as advice to buy. We think we received advice in addition to the brochure and projection letter, but we find it hard to see how an industry like the insurance industry can try to avoid its responsibilities by not treating such a brochure as advice.

Garry_Anderson

mcgsp wrote:

The brochure we received when we were taking out our endowment policy in 1986 was nearly all advert: it showed league tables (the insurance company just happened to be the top performer for 20 year policies - the period we were looking at) and gave diagrams showing surpluses with a small section in smaller print giving a few details about the product. It never mentioned how bonuses were generated. It never mentioned stocks and shares. There was no disclaimer warning that the document did not constitute advice and there was no reference to seeking independent advice.

We were naive as, I suspect, were most other people taking out endowments in 1986 and we certainly took the brochure as advice to buy. We think we received advice in addition to the brochure and projection letter, but we find it hard to see how an industry like the insurance industry can try to avoid its responsibilities by not treating such a brochure as advice.

Mcgsp - our brochure came with a letter and personal quotation based on our particular circumstances - there is no way that it cannot be considered anything other than advice to change from repayment scheme to endowments (bad financial advice and churning).

I cannot get a straight answer from the authorities (inc Serious Fraud Office) - they are evasive and dishonourable people.

To prove this - I made official complaint against FSA - for their lack of integrity - and won (could not honestly lose).

If the FSA have not got integrity - what does that say about the system?

They are in fact all cowards Mcgsp - the authorities help cover-up this massive fraud.

My sites: https://www.WoolwichSucks.co.uk - https://www.skilful.com - https://www.WIPO.org.uk

dunstonh

mcgsp wrote:

The brochure we received when we were taking out our endowment policy in 1986 was nearly all advert: it showed league tables (the insurance company just happened to be the top performer for 20 year policies - the period we were looking at) and gave diagrams showing surpluses with a small section in smaller print giving a few details about the product. It never mentioned how bonuses were generated. It never mentioned stocks and shares. There was no disclaimer warning that the document did not constitute advice and there was no reference to seeking independent advice.

We were naive as, I suspect, were most other people taking out endowments in 1986 and we certainly took the brochure as advice to buy. We think we received advice in addition to the brochure and projection letter, but we find it hard to see how an industry like the insurance industry can try to avoid its responsibilities by not treating such a brochure as advice.

You have to remember that standards today are far higher than back in 1986. There was no regulation whatsoever back then. So you wouldn't expect to see the compliance warnings that are present today. Where illustrative projection rates were given they were often double those that are used today. Irony is that many people considered those rates too low at the time because they were lower than what most investments were doing.

Whilst the brochure almost certainly would breach today's rules. It wouldn't have done then (as there were no rules to breach!). However, it still isn't financial advice. No-one visited. No-one told you to take it out. You could have sought advice but you didn't. I haven't seen the brochure and info you got so it is difficult to comment directly but unless it contains any really obvious indication that it was giving advice, then it's unlikely anything will come from it.

You could compare it to the consumers association (Which?) who were recommending endowments in the past (they like to forget that). Anyone who followed their advice and bought the "best buy" endowment has no come back because no adviser was involved. When you buy without an adviser making a recommendation, you have no come back unless the mailshot breaks any of the rules applicable for that era.

Although inconvenient for you, financial services is no different to other industries and professions in that it has limited liability for things it said 20 years ago when no rules were in place. You cannot expect rules to be applied retrospectively.

Garry_Anderson

Dunston - you explained how companies did not breach rules - because there was no rules to breach - now explain to Mcgsp why it was not fraud and how endowments were 'fit for purpose' of massive loan repayment.

I doubt you will, as the Serioud Fraud Office could not - but instead will just do your usual avoidance