Aviva - Endowment Shortfall

BobQ

McKneff wrote: »

#




Please be careful, on here, anyone can say they are anyone....

True but the poster was an official company representative and MSE claim these are checked out before being allowed to claim this status.

holly_hobby

Gosh I've had loads of mge endow sale reviews where they tried to claim they were risk adverse at POS (in respect of both WP and UL sales), only for it to be proven they had knowledge/experience and/or justified sales both pre and post pch - and although over the yrs I've only had a few instances where the Complainant has felt unhappy enough with the reason for decline to refer to FOS - I'm yet to have any decline overturned, right up to Ombudsman level .... (she says with fingers, eyes and toes crossed for the future !!).

But even a WP LCE can be a mis-sale, where the client was indeed risk adverse (for mge purposes), which as we know can be a differing ATR to how they view general investment/savings pols un-connected to the security of hse pch, or where conflicting comments were made by the adviser, and is certainly dubious where a RA ATR is cited, and they held no prev or existing investments at POS.

So a WP LCE suitability complaint, isn't always a decline due to only requiring a cautious ATR .. in fact in my experience far from it.

But where the policy risk status was appropriate, a complaint based on poor performance, is always a straight defend, as it should be :cool:.

Anyhoo ..... OP hasn't really expanded on their situ as POS, and whether they were aware of the performance risks at outset, or at any point subsequent to receipt of the recent and dreaded Red Letter !

But they know there's help here if needed (even if its to advise that they've no prospect of success) .

Hope this helps

Holly x

McKneff

BobQ wrote: »

True but the poster was an official company representative and MSE claim these are checked out before being allowed to claim this status.

I agree but the OP may not have known that they had been approved, hopefully all will be well.

magpiecottage

holly_hobby wrote: »

as I've seen in many cases, esp where the client is noted as a balanced investor

I hate that term.

If you are not balanced, you must be "imbalanced" or "unbalanced" - i.e. a looney!

"Moderate" is almost as bad. If you are not a moderate, what are you? Bin Laden?

Together, if there is no or POS docs, what is reasonable to assume was discussed too (inc if the client was an inexperienced/vunerable/novice investor and the adviser effectively overruled the POS risk warnings (which was common place), esp if there is a pattern of this in prev sales by the same individual).

Stop using jargon Holly - she means "point of sale" i.e. what happend when the policy was sold!

Generally, the question is "did this person make an informed decision?"

If I believe they did, then the complaint should be rejected. If not then I move on to the next question: "If they had made an informed decision would it have been any different?"

If they would then they might have suffered a loss but they would have done regardless of the adviser's actions - so the complaint is rejected.

It is not quite that simple because there a concept known as remoteness which says a person is only liable for consequences of their negligence that they ought reasonably to have anticipated might happen.

mr_gilmore

...esp if there is a pattern of this in prev sales by the same individual).

is it ethical for me to give the name of the guy who sold us this?
Neither myself or my wife are risk takers in the slightest so he certainly talked the talk.

holly_hobby

NO please do not name anyone on here.

The comment you've quoted, is actually in respect of the complaint handler and the results of their evidence gathering.

Magpie made a comment re informed decisions.

The investigator must determine if at point of sale, the client was placed in a position to make an informed and balanced decision (or exactly when they did become aware or accepting of the risk factor of the policy type). This evaluation must be based from available documetary evidence (ie from point of sale, subsequent purchases, independent client questioning by the reviewer and any other info retrived), but not from the investigators assumption or any unsubstantiated personal opinion.

The aviva rep has contacted you above, he'll advise if they are indeed responsible for the sale, and what your next steps are. (which will involve a complaint questionnaire)

At a later stage when you have a final decision, you can float it past the board for further comment if you wish.

Hope this helps, let us know how you get on......

Holly x

mr_gilmore

understood. Thanks so much Holly

holly_hobby

magpiecottage wrote: »

I hate that term.

If you are not balanced, you must be "imbalanced" or "unbalanced" - i.e. a looney!

"Moderate" is almost as bad. If you are not a moderate, what are you? Bin Laden?

I agree, but unfortuantely we do have to work with what the industry recognises .... perhaps we could lobby for a change to an altogether much more funky and illustrative set of descriptions for ATRs ... sorry Attitude To Risk (she'll really try and remember to hold the jargon) ..... now there some fun on a rainy day could be had !!

H