Endowment mortgage

Metman_2

I had two endowments that returned less than they were supposed to. Scottish Widows acknowledge this, but say they are or responsible as I bought these through an agent and not direct from them. Is this correct?

amnblog

Sounds like it.

It is not a question of what these policies were 'supposed' to return.

They were marketed twenty years ago when inflation and interest rates were often in double figures and therefore they were illustrated based on returns of 7, 9 and 11%.

There is no way these type of investments would be expected to make these kind of returns in the current market.

That is not the fault of the provider, nor the agent.

McKneff

You have had plenty of warnings over the years in letter form informing you of the various shortfalls.
Its been down to the markets.


You should have been dealing with it when you got the first 'warning'

amnblog

Perhaps we were happier when my gran used to moan because bread had gone up 2p in a week.

dunstonh

Metman wrote: »

I had two endowments that returned less than they were supposed to. Scottish Widows acknowledge this, but say they are or responsible as I bought these through an agent and not direct from them. Is this correct?

The seller has the liability for the advice given at point of sale (if it was an advised sale). Not the provider. So, SW are correct.

However, most endowments are time barred from complaint now anyway. You have three years from first being notified of a high risk of a shortfall (that equates to the middle projection rate on a statement showing it wont hit target on that example). Most of these went out in the early 2000s and the timebars were in place for over 3/4 of endowments by around 2008/9.

If you bought via an agent before April 1988 (if still trading) or Aug 1988 (if no longer trading) or a LAUTRO regulated firm that never went on to become PIA regulated then you have no-one to complain to.