Miss sold life insurance

dunstonh

I think the context is pretty clear

So you have seen the report then? What does it say?

The only problem you have is that the financial services indusrty is so mired in assorted mis-selling scams that the poor old FOS are creaking at the seams and to get your case looked at by them takes months rather than weeks.

Yet the FOS stats for term assurance show just 3572 complaints with the FOS for a full year (not bad on a product that has millions each year set up) and the FOS only upheld 12% of those complaints.

The problem is not the system. The problem isnt financial services. The problem is people like you encouraging others to jump to complaint without knowing the details.

Wouldnt it be better for the OP to post what was written and then get opinion rather than jump to a complaint about a product that is statistically unlikely to succeed?

vaio

nope, I haven't seen the report, all I can go on is what the OP tells us.......

Verbally they were told ".........we *had* to both take out life insurance in order to get the mortgage......" and "........ we *had* to take out ppi and terminal/ critical illness cover......"

In writing they were told "....it was a *requirement* of our mortgage offer.....", a statement flatly contradicted by the actual lender

To me this suggests a dissatisfied customer and I make no apologies for suggesting they lodge a complaint and escalate to the FOS if still dissatisfied.

You presumably haven't seen the report either but somehow manage to authoritatively state that there is no basis for a complaint and/or that any complaint stands "Virtually no chance" of success.

As for your suggestion that the problem is "....people like me....", I find that staggering (but not surprising).

I'm not the problem, the problem is the financial services industry selling unsuitable/worthless products, (or as in the OPs case selling what maybe suitable products by telling lies) and/or generally treating their customers badly.

That's why the FOS is seeing 200,000 complaints a year and upholding more than 50% of them.

That's 100,000+ people every year complaining to a company, being given the big FO by the complaints dept and then having the knowledge and tenacity to take it to the FOS, wait for the wheels to slowly grind and finally get redress.

dunstonh

Verbally they were told ".........we *had* to both take out life insurance in order to get the mortgage......" and "........ we *had* to take out ppi and terminal/ critical illness cover......"

Verbal rarely succeeds. Documentation usually is King.

In writing they were told "....it was a *requirement* of our mortgage offer.....", a statement flatly contradicted by the actual lender

But you said you havent seen it.

You presumably haven't seen the report either but somehow manage to authoritatively state that there is no basis for a complaint and/or that any complaint stands "Virtually no chance" of success.

On the basis of suitability, there is virtually no chance of success.

As for your suggestion that the problem is "....people like me....", I find that staggering (but not surprising).

You acknowledge the system is clogged up at the moment yet it is you that is encouraging a complaint without knowing the facts.

That's why the FOS is seeing 200,000 complaints a year and upholding more than 50% of them.

Using PPI figures is not helpful. I have already given life assurance figures and the uphold rate is 12%. Hence why it is important to get the facts right first.

vaio

Verbal rarely succeeds. Documentation usually is King.........

Yep, I'd probably not believe a word a financial advisor told me......

But you said you havent seen it.........

But I do believe the OP when they tell us they have documentation stating that the assorted policies were a *requirement* of the mortgage offer, in normal English that means compulsory rather than optional

On the basis of suitability, there is virtually no chance of success.........

What about on the basis of a maybe suitable product being sold by telling lies? Is that not mis-selling?

You acknowledge the system is clogged up at the moment yet it is you that is encouraging a complaint without knowing the facts.........

It's clogged up because the financial services industry seems to be scaling new heights in misbehaviour

Using PPI figures is not helpful. I have already given life assurance figures and the uphold rate is 12%. Hence why it is important to get the facts right first.

I didn't mention PPI, if you include them the poor old FOS is getting 500,000 new cases a year.

Also, it looks like the 12% uphold rate is for last year, looking at the most recent figures (to September) the uphold rate has doubled to 23% so even something as relatively simple as life insurance is going backwards

magpiecottage

Term Assurance is sold under ICOBs rules (i.e. general insurance). This means that whilst I always advise my clients to issue a suitability report for it, there is no breach of rules if an adviser doesn't because it is not a requirement of the rules.

If adviser said that the cover was a requirement of the mortgage offer that would be a breach. However, if they said it was a requirement of the adviser not charging a fee for arringing the mortgage then it would not be.

It would also not be if they merely said life cover was "necessary" because that would depend on the circumstances of the case and from what the OP says, I think FOS would conclude that it was necessary.

Even if FOS concluded there was a breach, that would not mean it upheld the complaint. If it concludes that the customer purchased an appropriate or suitable product anyway then there would be no loss and it would not uphold the complaint - even if the adviser got to the right place by luck rather than judgement.

vaio

as the OP has stated "....the mortgage advisor had wrote down it was a requirement of our mortgage offer......" I think we can agree there is a breach in that the advisor stated something that wasn't true in order to make a sale. (aka lied)

Moving on from there, when you say.....

magpiecottage wrote: »

.....Even if FOS concluded there was a breach, that would not mean it upheld the complaint. If it concludes that the customer purchased an appropriate or suitable product anyway then there would be no loss and it would not uphold the complaint - even if the adviser got to the right place by luck rather than judgement......

you seem to be suggesting that if an advisor lies to a client and as a result gets them to buy a product they didn't want then it's OK as long as the product is deemed suitable? (suitable by who?).

That sort of "end justifies the means" ethos is fine when applied to convincing a toddler that the car engine won't start until everybody has a seat belt on but I struggle to see it as suitable for adults and insurance.

magpiecottage

vaio wrote: »

as the OP has stated "....the mortgage advisor had wrote down it was a requirement of our mortgage offer......" I think we can agree there is a breach in that the advisor stated something that wasn't true in order to make a sale. (aka lied)

Not quite. We only have the OP's side of the story. Unfortunately, whilst some advisers undoubtedly do lie, my own experience indicates that complainants do as well.

you seem to be suggesting that if an advisor lies to a client and as a result gets them to buy a product they didn't want then it's OK as long as the product is deemed suitable?

No - what I am saying is that a customer is only entitled to redress if it is concluded that they have ended up worse off as a result. If it is decided that, had they been correctly advised they would have purchased the product anyway then no redress is awarded.

This is commonly occurs with Mortgage PPI.

(suitable by who?)

Ultimately either FOS or a court - depending on which route the complainant chooses.

That sort of "end justifies the means" ethos is fine when applied to convincing a toddler that the car engine won't start until everybody has a seat belt on but I struggle to see it as suitable for adults and insurance.

You are confusing punishment and redress.

The function of FOS is only one of redress. It cannot award redress simply because a rule has been broken. It has to believe the rule breach resulted in financial loss (or material distress or inconvenience) to the complainant.

Disclipinary issues are the domain of the regulator.

Annmarie1503

Thank you everyone for your help,I contacted Barclays and raised my complaint,It was delt with very quickly and on Friday I received a letter from them upholding my complaint and have offered us a full refund of all money paid plus8%.thanks again everyone for your help.

vaio

good result, thanks for sharing the outcome

magpiecottage

Annmarie1503 wrote: »

I contacted Barclays and raised my complaint

Ah - you dealt with a bank salesperson rather than an independent adviser.

Therein lies the problem.