Rejected by FOS, so can I take them to court?

Essex_uk

I helped a friend reclaim lost investment income from Barclays via the FOS following bad investment advise.
Because the amount refunded was still less than half of that from an ordinary savings account over the 5yr period, we started a separate FOS case against Aviva. This was, after almost 2 years rejected by the FOS.
Can we take Aviva to court and if so what are the procedure's and likely success?
Has anyone else taken Aviva to court? because like us you think they are just as responsible as Barclays for encouraging actions such as Barclays.


I've been unable to find archive court cases with Aviva's name mentioned - any suggestions?

bowlhead99

You didn't explain why FOS ruled to give you money from Barclays or why it was less than what you wanted. Presumably they have a reason to say why it was a fair number?

Typically, investment income is quite different to savings income because investment income and investment assets are often not guaranteed while a savings deposit is. The whole idea of investment income is that it can vary and be more than savings with the downside that it can be vary and be less. If something is missold you might get compensation but if an investment doesn't perform or if the compensation level is not equivalent to alternative returns available on the very highest paying savings account it is not clear that you're owed more money from anyone.

You don't seem to have explained what Aviva have done to cause you a loss and what you mean by 'encouraged' the actions of Barclays and what the actions of Barclays actually were?

If the FOS, as specialists in the products and services sold by Aviva, do not think Aviva have a case to answer, it is perhaps unlikely that a court would think that Aviva are guilty as hell and owe you money somehow.

Aviva have not been operating under the Aviva brand for a long time in the grand scheme of things. A couple of decades ago they would have been something else. So, look up their other trading brands. Of course, if there are really no archive court cases with Aviva's name mentioned perhaps they are outstanding corporate citizens which is why nobody successfully sued them.

Reaper

So are you saying you got all your capital back in compensation, but not as much growth on top as you wanted?

So now you are trying to get all the capital + interest back from a second source?

That won't work if so, the best you can get is to be put back in the situation you should have been without the bad advice. You won't be allowed to double your money by complaining about both if that is what you were hoping.

dunstonh

Because the amount refunded was still less than half of that from an ordinary savings account over the 5yr period, we started a separate FOS case against Aviva. This was, after almost 2 years rejected by the FOS.

Why did the FOS reject?
Was it because Aviva had absolutely nothing to do with the sale?

Can we take Aviva to court and if so what are the procedure's and likely success?

Why do you think Aviva have liability for a sale made by Barclays?

Has anyone else taken Aviva to court? because like us you think they are just as responsible as Barclays for encouraging actions such as Barclays.

How are they just as responsible? Did you speak to an Aviva representative or a barclays one?

I've been unable to find archive court cases with Aviva's name mentioned - any suggestions?

I suspect that is because you are barking up the wrong tree. the product provider is not liable for actions by the seller. the seller has the liability.

Essex_uk

Some interesting comments here and thank you all for taking the time to respond.
As many people are aware Barclays were find by the FSA over the mis-selling of Aviva’s Global Balanced Income Fund and their Global Cautious Income Fund products. This issue is a similar product, which guaranteed capital return.
The issues I have with Aviva are as follows:-

1. Aviva levied management fees over a five year period that almost matched the annual income. The results of which was 10% of that which could have been earned on an ordinary fixed rate savings account.
2. That as a 'responsible' company they would have known that there was a massive increase in the sales of these products via one source - Barclays and should have analysed the 'integrity' of the sales techniques employed.
3. In Feb 2014 it was reported in the Daily Mail that due to the multitude of takeovers undertaken by Norwich Union / Aviva that hundreds of technical errors occurred. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) launched an investigation and having identified nearly 200 errors reported them to the Financial Services Authority (FSA). It transpires that nearly 360 errors had occurred as at April 2013.

What is more concerning and really upsetting is that the FOS reported this to the FSA in 2007, So they knew that they had seriously messed up back then, yet the FOS make us and I’m sure hundreds of others go through their long convoluted claims process.


4. The FOS has Sir Nicholas Montagu as a non-executive director, who was previously chairman of the Aviva UK Life With-Profits Committee - coincidence?


The question remains - Take Aviva to court?

dunstonh

Aviva levied management fees over a five year period that almost matched the annual income. The results of which was 10% of that which could have been earned on an ordinary fixed rate savings account.

Aviva's product pricing is up to them. it is a commercial decision. If you dont like it, then you dont buy it.
The pricing of the funds for a managed fund is consistent with ballpark pricing of bank and insurance company managed funds. The running yield of the balanced income fund is 7.32% The charge is 1.21%. So, actually, the implicit charge on a fixed rate savings account is probably higher than the explicit charge on the investment.

That as a 'responsible' company they would have known that there was a massive increase in the sales of these products via one source - Barclays and should have analysed the 'integrity' of the sales techniques employed.

Totally irrelevant. Aviva have no liability for the sale of their products by unrelated third parties.

In Feb 2014 it was reported in the Daily Mail that due to the multitude of takeovers undertaken by Norwich Union / Aviva that hundreds of technical errors occurred. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) launched an investigation and having identified nearly 200 errors reported them to the Financial Services Authority (FSA). It transpires that nearly 360 errors had occurred as at April 2013.

Totally irrelevant to you.

What is more concerning and really upsetting is that the FOS reported this to the FSA in 2007, So they knew that they had seriously messed up back then, yet the FOS make us and I’m sure hundreds of others go through their long convoluted claims process.

Again, nothing to do with you.

4. The FOS has Sir Nicholas Montagu as a non-executive director, who was previously chairman of the Aviva UK Life With-Profits Committee - coincidence?

Your reasons were daft but this is taking it to a new level.

The question remains - Take Aviva to court?

Only if you want to waste money and look a fool. Unrelated issues are not valid reasons to getting a different complaint upheld. Conspiracy theories don't go down well in court. The reason the FCA did not take any action against Aviva was that Aviva were not responsible.

bowlhead99

Essex_uk wrote: »

Some interesting comments here and thank you all for taking the time to respond.
As many people are aware Barclays were find by the FSA over the mis-selling of Aviva’s Global Balanced Income Fund and their Global Cautious Income Fund products. This issue is a similar product, which guaranteed capital return.

What "issue is a similar product"?

Is your issue about those two specific products or some other "similar" ones?

Are those two products that you named, products that guaranteed capital returns? They don't say that in the name? I get the impression they are/were just funds that can go up and down in value.

There is no problem with having a product that guaranteed capital return as long as the risks are set out and people are not advised to buy it inappropriately. What actual product did you buy? And from whom did you buy it - Barclays?

From what you are saying it sounds like Barclays made mistakes in how they sold it or advised about it and were fined accordingly - I don't know the details. You already got paid out an amount by FOS who said Barclays should compensate you for being damaged, with an appropriate amount. If they were the sellers and they have been brought to account, the FOS's work is done. Aviva don't need to also be fined just for existing. Their products may be suitable for some people or their products may be poor value for money for everyone. If a product is poor value, don't buy it.

1. Aviva levied management fees over a five year period that almost matched the annual income. The results of which was 10% of that which could have been earned on an ordinary fixed rate savings account.

Management fee rates are not something you sue for. They are a feature of the product. I have paid over 10% in a year on one fund that made me a great return and I have paid 1% in a year on a fund that lost money. Managing the fund is how they make money. You can't take them to court because they charge fees.



If you would have preferred to have made more income or more growth, you could have bought an alternative product which invested in higher yielding or riskier assets and was more likely to make large amounts of money in the good times. That wouldn't have been a cautious income fund though. Or you could have bought a product with different fee rates

That as a 'responsible' company they would have known that there was a massive increase in the sales of these products via one source - Barclays and should have analysed the 'integrity' of the sales techniques employed.

Presumably they wanted an increase in the sales of products from all sources so were glad the products were being promoted. Barclays are a regulated financial services business and are not part of Aviva. FOS with hindsight thinks Barclays did wrong. Aviva without hindsight did not have to presume that a regulated financial services business was doing wrong and go and launch an investigation just because sales targets were met. Barclays have millions of customers. So perhaps Barclays were not even making as many sales as Aviva thought they would.



Regardless - you were not missold a product by Aviva so I'm not seeing why you would get to sue Aviva or anyone else for what Barclays did.

In Feb 2014 it was reported in the Daily Mail that due to the multitude of takeovers undertaken by Norwich Union / Aviva that hundreds of technical errors occurred. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) launched an investigation and having identified nearly 200 errors reported them to the Financial Services Authority (FSA). It transpires that nearly 360 errors had occurred as at April 2013

You seem to be confusing some issues. Aviva have had millions of customers and have made a few hundred technical errors. Presumably those errors have been corrected. How does this relate to you being mis-sold an investment product by Barclays or anyone else?

What is more concerning and really upsetting is that the FOS reported this to the FSA in 2007, So they knew that they had seriously messed up back then, yet the FOS make us and I’m sure hundreds of others go through their long convoluted claims process.

Plenty of firms make errors. Presumably the errors were fixed. Were the technical errors in relation to the management fees they charged you? Or the advice they gave you about whether the product was suitable for your needs? Were you one of those customers affected by an error 'as a result of a multitude of takeovers' and did it cause you a material loss?

My expectation is that this is nothing whatsoever to do with your complaint. You just want to paint them as bad guys. You cannot sue someone just because the daily mail prints an article saying they made mistakes unconnected to your specific situation. You asked the FOS to go through a 'long and convoluted claims process' and after they did all that work for you they said that you were in the wrong and did not have a case. Some would say you have wasted their time.

Indirectly, I fund the FOS through the financial products I buy. So you have wasted my money with your unfounded complaint. Can I sue you for that?

The FOS has Sir Nicholas Montagu as a non-executive director, who was previously chairman of the Aviva UK Life With-Profits Committee - coincidence?

It is probably not a major surprise that someone with a background of operating at a senior level in a large financial services business is acting for the FOS. Where else would they get people with the requisite experience?

He is a non-executive which means he does not make executive decisions relating to the day to day operations. I am almost certain that they did not appoint him to that role because they heard you had a complaint about Aviva mis-selling you something and wanted him to quash it.

So, yes. Coincidence. Take your tin-foil hat and go hang out with the other conspiracy theorists.

The question remains - Take Aviva to court?

The various questions from Dunstonh in the post above remain - why do you think you are entitled to anything? You have completely ignored the questions, written off the responses as 'interesting comments' and continued to rant about how Aviva are bad guys.

If you went to court you would have to articulate the reasons that they owe you money. FOS did not find any reasons that they owe you money. You have not convinced us why they owe you money. You simply explained that their business, unconnected to this specific product, has made some errors, that they charged management fees, that they got some unspecified level of sales via Barclays, and an FOS person once acted as chairman of a with-profits fund (in which you were presumably not invested).

Feel free to actually explain how much you have lost and why Aviva owe you money.

Reaper

A blunt but accurate answer from dunstonh. You seem to want to act as regulator and profit out of doing so. That won't wash in the courts. The best you can hope for is fair restitution which the FOS believe it has given you. You have not said how the FOS arrived at its figure but unless it is seriously flawed I don't see why a court would feel the need to change it.

You won some money back for your friend, don't now chuck it all away pursuing a doomed legal campaign.

Essex_uk

The points raised convince me that to take Aviva to court is pointless as clearly the facts will not stand up in court.
So thank you for these.








What is more surprising is that the speed at which the return comments are posted and that they are very much pro-Aviva. Now that we've established who you work for; I not bother posting anything on this 'corporate' site ever again.

ChesterDog

Somebody please tell me whether to laugh or cry at this point.

macca1974

I don't think that the comments are particularly pro Aviva. Nobody has said "its a great fund" or anything like that. The issue is that you were given regulated advice by a regulated firm in Barclays who are responsible for ensuring that the advice is suitable. It appears from what you have said that the FOS found that the advice wasn't suitable and made Barclays put you back into a position that they felt would have been the case if you hadn't received the bad advice.

All that Aviva have done is launch a product (again regulated) that you invested in. As long as they ran the fund in line with the fund objectives then they haven't done anything wrong.

A very clunky analogy would be that you went to a car sales man for a Volvo estate and got sold a Ford Ka. It isn't Fords fault that you can't fit much stuff in the boot, its the salesmans fault for selling you something that wasn't appropriate.