Endowment Mis-selling - Don't give up!

dunstonh

Garry_Anderson wrote:

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

You are correct. I won't. Your conspiracy theory views don't help anyone and your opinions are flawed and you don't accept anyone elses views or understand the economics and circumstances behind these things.

mcgsp

I feel it is ironic that dunston should say that "you cannot expect rules to be applied retrospectively". Is the insurance industry not guilty of applying 21st century rules re advice to what happened in 1986?

In 1986 we thought we went about buying our endowment by obtaining information and advice. We obtained literature from the insurance company and an individual policy projection (with a big surplus!). We asked verbal questions and received answers re retirement and an existing policy. Seems to us that we sought advice.

We did not seek independent financial advice but the insurance company sold us the policy (with no reduction in premium to reflect lack of advice) and did not in 1986 suggest that we were not receiving advice from them and that we would lose any right to compensation if did not seek that independent advice. 1986 rules?

dunstonh

I feel it is ironic that dunston should say that "you cannot expect rules to be applied retrospectively". Is the insurance industry not guilty of applying 21st century rules re advice to what happened in 1986?

I'm sorry, I don't see what you are saying. In 1986, there was no regulation of financial services. Progressively over the years from 1988 onwards regulation has got stronger and standards better. However, you cannot expect to apply 2006 standards and requirements to 1986 when there were none.

In 1986 we thought we went about buying our endowment by obtaining information and advice. We obtained literature from the insurance company and an individual policy projection (with a big surplus!). We asked verbal questions and received answers re retirement and an existing policy. Seems to us that we sought advice.

You havent sought advice. You sought information. At any point did you see a financial adviser and was any recommendations made by that financial adviser?

We did not seek independent financial advice but the insurance company sold us the policy (with no reduction in premium to reflect lack of advice) and did not in 1986 suggest that we were not receiving advice from them and that we would lose any right to compensation if did not seek that independent advice. 1986 rules?

There were no rules in 1986. Therefore no compensation rights to lose. It was unregulated at that point. Regulation began in 1988.

I do have trouble understanding why you believe that you were given financial advice when you never once spoke with a financial adviser.

mcgsp

In 1986 we bought an endowment from the insurance company after being influenced by their literature, both general and personal,and being happy with their responses to issues raised with them. No one from the company told us we would lose any future rights by buying from them in this way. We certainly thought we had been advised by the company to buy its product. That was the reality of buying a policy in 1986.

In 2006 the finance industry now requires that a "financial adviser" gets involved in the purchase or the purchases loses his/her rights. If no financial adviser, no advice has been given. 2006 rules.

Has the industry realised that it might be forced to give up some of the profits made in the mid-80s and therefore decided to apply its 2006 approach to policy buying in 1986? 2006 advice requires a financial adviser; we did not use a financial adviser in 1986 (even although we were not told that we had to in 1986 to preserve our rights as a purchaser) therefore in 2006 we have no mis-selling rights?

Do the insurance companies not feel any moral responsibilty to their customers? Rather than arguing over definitions re "advice" as a possible route to try to avoid compensation should they not be looking at: have we treated our customers fairly. I think that generally we much more trusting of insurance companies in 1986!

dunstonh

Has the industry realised that it might be forced to give up some of the profits made in the mid-80s and therefore decided to apply its 2006 approach to policy buying in 1986? 2006 advice requires a financial adviser; we did not use a financial adviser in 1986 (even although we were not told that we had to in 1986 to preserve our rights as a purchaser) therefore in 2006 we have no mis-selling rights?

Do we make the residents of Bristol today pay compensation for slavery even though it took place long ago? Slavery was normal and legal back then but recognised as being wrong today. In 1986, NU acted within the law. Whilst it wouldnt be allowed today, you can not apply 2006 rules to then.

Even if you had gone to an IFA in 1986, you would have no redress as there was no regulation until 1988.

mcgsp

Nuff said! We are bowing out of this thread. Thanks for giving us an insight into how the insurance industry might view our claim.

We only applied to the insurance company after it said it would consider pre-1988 cases.

aloiseb

Feeling very sorry for everyone who happened to get "done" by the lack of regulation pre-1988 - we lost thousands through an estate agent being careless or unscrupulous, and landing us with negative equity, through their misdescription. Again, no regulations pre-1988.
Now the good news....
We've just been offered compensation of over £2000 - thanks to your nudgings in the weekly email, Martin, and the useful link to the Which standard letter - we were going to use one of those firms who offer to get the compensation for you, but having the form letter gave us the confidence to go it alone, and glory be it worked.
So, thanks very, very much!!! - this could mean new flooring in our new place.

Nuuk

There is a 'Sale of Goods and Services " Act dating from 1982. Surely the selling of an endowment policy is a service so if that service was not satisfactory, ie the potential shortfall was not made clear to the purchaser, then there is a reason for anybody mis-sold a policy prior to 1986 having a case!

How come some people are getting compensation and some are not? No matter how hard I try, I can't see why that is!

JosieAnn_2

Hi, this is the first time I've used the forum. I wonder if anyone is in the same posiiton as I am.

I worked for an Insurance Company when I took out my endowment in 1989. I spoke to the Insurance consultant and he told me an endowment would be best as it would pay off the mortgage and I would get a lump sum.

I have recently phone the company and they said as I worked for them I would have signed a disclaimer notice saying I did not receive any advice as to which product is most suitable.

I can't find any paperwork and I can't remember signing anything. ( I might have done but it was a long time ago!) Does anyone know if what they told me is correct?

Hope someone can help.

dunstonh

I have recently phone the company and they said as I worked for them I would have signed a disclaimer notice saying I did not receive any advice as to which product is most suitable.

I can't find any paperwork and I can't remember signing anything. ( I might have done but it was a long time ago!) Does anyone know if what they told me is correct?

Hope someone can help.

This is fairly common and linked with the cheaper terms you would have got the product for. It is not a 100% rule though and would vary across advice companies though.