Possible to claim Endowment Mis-sold?

cgray25

Posting a question on behalf of my father so apologies if it's sketchy on details, but I can get more if required. He took out an endowment mortgage around 1991 with Norwich Union/Aviva but it's now looking to have over £15K shortfall.

He took a cold-call in relation to this :embarasse from a company who seemed to think he had a strong case (although they took an upfront fee, then 25%). I told him to stay away.

Obviously he'd like to look into a claim but was concerned he might be 'time barred' given the date, so wanted to check if this was the case. And presumably there's sources online to track down reputable companies to pursue this for you?

amnblog

They are idiots - I suspect your father isn't so he wont be paying them.

If you have a problem you can take it up with the provider for free but it sounds like you do not have a case.

dunstonh

He took a cold-call in relation to this from a company who seemed to think he had a strong case (although they took an upfront fee, then 25%). I told him to stay away.

EMACs by any chance? They are the only cowboys I can think of still telling people this. hardly any claims companies deal with endowments nowadays. Thsoe that do tend to want up front fees and that is where they make their money. It is almost a form of advance fee fraud.

Obviously he'd like to look into a claim but was concerned he might be 'time barred' given the date, so wanted to check if this was the case.

Aviva have been active in timebarring. Most of theirs were timebarred by around 2007/8. Why is it obvious that he would want to complain now and not 10 years ago when the endowment issue was so prominent?

cgray25

Thanks for replies, it was Claim-Wise in Belfast.

It was a complicated issue, he was sold the policy by a friend and tried to address it when the shortfall was evident but was told that his claim would have to be against his friend, and not Aviva, which he didn't want to do. However, he's since been advised that's not he case (though that advice may have come from a claim company!).

Annisele

Who employed your father's friend?

If it was Aviva, then the claim would be against Aviva. If somebody else, then it would be against the somebody else (or possibly their principal, if they were an appointed rep - but that's besides the point at the moment).

However, that doesn't help with the timebar issue. Effectively your father would be saying that he was reasonably aware he had cause to complain, but he didn't because he didn't want to upset his friend. Unless he can successfully argue those are exceptional circumstances that prevented him from complaining, I think he'll fall at the first hurdle.

In addition, you haven't actually said anything that suggests he has a valid complaint. (He might have one - but the shortfall in itself is irrelevant to that).

cgray25

His friend was self-employed, hence the problem.

Again, I don't really know anything about it but I'd have thought there may be cause for claim if someone at Aviva said responsibility didn't lie with them when it did...but just speculating.

kingstreet

For Aviva to be responsible, the sale would have to have been made by someone working for Aviva, or an Aviva appointed representative.

The issue is how the plan was sold, not what/which plan was sold.

dunstonh

His friend was self-employed, hence the problem.

The complaint would be made to the friend then.

Again, I don't really know anything about it but I'd have thought there may be cause for claim if someone at Aviva said responsibility didn't lie with them when it did...but just speculating.

It isnt about the plan. It is about how it was sold. That is why the seller takes the liability.

He could also phone Aviva up and ask them if they have applied the complaint timebar. If they say yes then every other point is irrelevant.

cgray25

Just spoke with my Dad, he said he had sent a complaint to Aviva before the time-bar and they said the responsibility lay with the agent/broker.

If that's the case, fair enough, he just thought it would be worth questioning that as they may have been trying to deflect any responsibility.