We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Scottish Provident SelfAssurance - Missold?

Options
2

Comments

  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 10,657 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    addedvaluebob wrote: »
    So you conveniently forget best advice and know your client as the forerunners of TCF and how this should have played out with any financial adviser before 2006. You know nothing about the details of the case but have stated that there is no case to answer because it was mortgage broker (you don't know if this is correct or not as the OP may not have stated the role correctly) but definitely would not be regulated for the sale of this product (you have no idea)

    So what mgc is saying is that if you try and complain to a company he represents and do not specifically quote the right piece of legislation (I only used tcf as an example) you will use this to highlight why they are not eligible for compensation for any alleged mis-selling.

    Please remember everybody, mgc represents the industry and companies you may complain against for financial services mis-selling.
    And please remember everybody that avb represents an industry of leeches who lie, falsely advertise and submit claims known to be wrong while taking a huge chunk of money for doing a free process without telling you there is no more chance of success for using them!

    Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness: 

    People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.

  • addedvaluebob
    addedvaluebob Posts: 478 Forumite
    oh dear, you do take yourself very seriously don't you.
  • -taff
    -taff Posts: 15,341 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Probably because he just can't help pointing out you are constantly wrong and giving people bad advice....

    Some people are just so helpful...no?
    Non me fac calcitrare tuum culi
  • magpiecottage
    magpiecottage Posts: 9,241 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    addedvaluebob wrote: »
    oh dear, you do take yourself very seriously don't you.
    No - I take people's grievances seriously. That is why I give an honest, and informed, opinion about whether their complaint, as presented to us, seems to have a reasonable prospect of success.

    They only get one shot at FOS so following the approach of the CMCs of simply putting down lots of different complaints in the hope that one of them "sticks" is clearly flawed.

    It is worth noting that no case where an Ombudsman has identified has identified contradictory complaint points that cannot both be true has the complaint been upheld (and also that such cases have all involved CMCs).

    In the end, though, if you are going to complain, you need to know what it is that you are complaining about and that it has a reasonable prospect of succeeding.
  • addedvaluebob
    addedvaluebob Posts: 478 Forumite
    Nasqueron wrote: »
    And please remember everybody that avb represents an industry of leeches who lie, falsely advertise and submit claims known to be wrong while taking a huge chunk of money for doing a free process without telling you there is no more chance of success for using them!

    Please remember that I don't represent anybody. Obviously some posters are too stupid to read previous emails in response to direct questions that contain the phrase I AM RETIRED but I guess if people are so stupid that they cannot read this three word phrase and the moderators see nothing wrong with people writing lies about me then I guess I just have to state it over and over again in the hope that someone explains the phrase I AM RETIRED to the posters who are too stupid to understand it
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 10,657 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    addedvaluebob wrote: »
    Please remember that I don't represent anybody. Obviously some posters are too stupid to read previous emails in response to direct questions that contain the phrase I AM RETIRED but I guess if people are so stupid that they cannot read this three word phrase and the moderators see nothing wrong with people writing lies about me then I guess I just have to state it over and over again in the hope that someone explains the phrase I AM RETIRED to the posters who are too stupid to understand it

    You constantly post recommending people use CMCs (including mysterious ones that apparently want to turn down free advertising even though they're apparently great and take far less commission than the mainstream companies). If you are retired, why are you promoting the use of companies that do nothing for consumers except leach money for posting letters off?

    Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness: 

    People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.

  • addedvaluebob
    addedvaluebob Posts: 478 Forumite
    Nasqueron wrote: »
    You constantly post recommending people use CMCs (including mysterious ones that apparently want to turn down free advertising even though they're apparently great and take far less commission than the mainstream companies). If you are retired, why are you promoting the use of companies that do nothing for consumers except leach money for posting letters off?

    I never recommend any company. I merely point out that there are companies out there that do not fit the biased viewpoint of this forum that has become mainstream in that apparently everyone who runs or works in a CMC is some form of criminal. Many of these companies are run by financial advisers and solicitors.

    There is nothing 'mysterious' about the fact that there are companies which charge a lot less than the 30% that is always quoted on here who specialise mainly in investment complaints (I have posted this many times before. My postings have always been the same. If you want to use a company then do some research first.

    The companies I know want nothing to do with this site (said that many times before as well.)
  • addedvaluebob
    addedvaluebob Posts: 478 Forumite
    magpiecottage wrote: »
    More to the point, if he is retired, how does he know how these companies operate or what is in the contents of their client files?

    I can only see three possibilities:
    1. They are providing their clients personal details to him in breach of the Data Protection Act.
    2. He is stealing information from them.
    3. The claims are not true - though whether it is the claim to be retired or the claim to have the information is not something I am currently in a position to determine.
    Anyway, I think the bottom line is that we are not stupid enough to believe him.

    No, apparently you are just stupid enough to believe this rubbish.

    You must be getting desperate to start accusing me of being a criminal.

    I am retired but not dead. I have a memory and have worked in a number of major financial companies and banks looking at case reviews, complaints and S166 reviews.

    When you retire it does not mean that you lose touch with many contacts made in a 30 year career in financial services or get asked for an opinion on issues from former colleagues.

    I can only come up with a few reasons why you would post lies and accuse me of being a criminal.

    You don't want anybody on this forum who disagrees with your agenda to dissuade people from making complaints. You constantly quote acts and legislation but it is nearly always to point out why the poster should not bother going any further.

    In this thread you keep stating that the sale of a protection policy cannot possibly win because the legislation did not come in until later and would not apply to the original salesperson.

    To anyone looking at this thread please look at financial ombudsman decisions about sales of life assurance and protection policies before 2005.

    Many of these cases would apparently had no chance using the logic of magpiecottage.

    You have accused the OP of being a liar about the status of the person arranging the policy when you have no idea of the salespersons actual status and know full well that the public were often mislead/misunderstood over the status of the adviser.

    Bottom line is that you want to dissuade as many people from making a complaint as possible
  • magpiecottage
    magpiecottage Posts: 9,241 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    addedvaluebob wrote: »
    No, apparently you are just stupid enough to believe this rubbish.
    No – I am simply not stupid enough to believe the posts without considering their credibility.
    You must be getting desperate to start accusing me of being a criminal.
    This is a case in point. I did not make such an accusation. I merely pointed out that it was one explanation of what you had posted. The alternative is that what you posted is not true.
    I am retired but not dead. I have a memory and have worked in a number of major financial companies and banks looking at case reviews, complaints
    Your memory will be of those institutions. Banks were members of the old Banking Ombudsman scheme until 2001. They then volunteered to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service in respect of activities which had hitherto be under the Banking Ombudsman's jurisdiction.


    This does not help the OP who tells us they purchased from a mortgage broker.



    and S166 reviews.
    This refers to section 166 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. It empowers the regulator – originally the Financial Services Authority and now the Financial Conduct Authority to require a firm to commission a report from a “Skilled Person” into matters under its jurisdiction. The Authority must be satisfied that the person is suitably skilled.


    The difficulty I have in believing that addedvaluebob is or was a “Skilled Person” is that such a person would, of necessity, understand the rules as they stood at any given time and where the regulator's powers ended. Yet addedvaluebob has sought to apply powers that only existed from 14 January 2005 to events that took place in 2004 and also to apply an initiative launched by the FSA in 2006 to events that took place in 2004.


    To me, that seems to call his competence into question.
    When you retire it does not mean that you lose touch with many contacts made in a 30 year career in financial services
    There is nothing wrong with keeping in touch with old friends but that does not mean that you can continue to have a valid understanding of their ongoing business – let alone that of other businesses.

    or get asked for an opinion on issues from former colleagues.


    Earlier in this thread addedvaluebob accused me on this thread
    addedvaluebob wrote: »
    You know nothing about the details of the case
    – despite me, not unreasonably, assuming that what the OP told us was true.


    On the other hand, his former colleagues are apparently able to get a valid opinion from him either without relevant personal information about complainants being disclosed to him - or with it disclosed unlawfully.


    Again, this does not stack up.

    I can only come up with a few reasons why you would post lies
    Except that I have not done so. I have posted comments based on evidence.

    and accuse me of being a criminal.
    That is not true. I have said only that criminality would be an explanation. I also posted the alternative that what you have said is not true. That is not, in itself, a crime.


    You can say you are a cucumber on this forum for all I care. I will not believe it but, provided it is unlikely to cause anybody any harm or loss, that is up to you.
    You don't want anybody on this forum who disagrees with your agenda to dissuade people from making complaints.


    If others would like to read the following they can decide for themselves whether your assertion is true.



    magpiecottage wrote: »
    If you think you have not been treated fairly then complain.

    If you do not like the response then go to FOS.



    magpiecottage wrote: »
    If they have libelled you in internal correspondence then in theory you can sue for that irrespective of the claim itself.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    Absolutely. If upheld, it is likely that FOS will also make an award for what they used to call distress and inconvenience but have started calling trouble and strife or something like that.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    FOS is free - and can award up to £150,000 redress. An Ombudsman's decision would be legally binding on the business if you accept it (but on neither party if you do not).

    Do you actually have a copy of the signature that you say is a forgery? If it is obviously different from any other signatures of yours that they hold then they will find it difficult to defend their position.

    My first course of action would therefore be to obtain the signatures. If there is an obvious discrepancy, I would complain along those lines.

    It is inquisitorial but it is also paper based. Only in exceptional circumstances is there a hearing. I have only ever been involved in one case that went to a hearing (and that was simply that both sides agreed that it was fairest to ask somebody neutral to decide how much compensation was fair as neither knew how to quantify the loss).

    As she is a party to the mortgage they refuse to discharge, she IS a customer.

    So her complaint is that Santander is refusing to discharge the mortgage on repayment of the balance of the mortgage loan account because of a loan to which she was not a party and which was never secured on her home.

    If the supposed signature is clearly not the one on the mortgage, Santander's position will be even more tenuous.

    An additional advantage of going down the complaints route is that Santander will get an organ grinder rather than a monkey to look at it. Organ grinding does not involve a great deal of intelligence but it is more than a monkey needs.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    If you put ANY of the cost on credit (including the free credit from Hitachi mentioned above), then the credit provider (in this case Hitachi) is jointly and severally liable under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

    So write to them and ask them how they wish to go about honouring the guarantee.

    If they refuse then under the Consumer Credit Act 2006 you can take then to the Financial Ombudsman Service (free!).

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    If you paid by credit card, or a finance plan arranged as by the provider, then the credit card/finance provider will be liable - provided it was your own credit card/finance arrangement.

    This applies provided the treatment was within prescribed limits - at least £100 and not more than £25,000 or possibly higher depending on when you had it done.

    Note that it is the cost of the treatment, not the amount of the loan that counts.

    If the loan was a penny but the work was £20,000 then the lender is liable - even if oyu have now paid the loan off.

    If the guarantee is not honoured by the provider then ask the lender to sort it. If they refuse, you can ask the Financial Ombudsman Service for assistance.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    If you do not like the response to your complaint, you can go to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    I suggest you take them into a branch of HSBC with a copy of the letter and ask them to take copies of the relevant documents, certify them and forward them to the relevant office.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    The FCA and FOS both take a dim view of a credit card provider attempting to pursue a statute barred debt. However, you would need to complain to the provider first.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    You are entitled to complain to the insurer if you wish.

    You would not be the first to persuade FOS to uphold a complaint of this nature.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    If AXA has turned down the OP then they will need to go to FOS if they think AXA should have paid out (it is free).

    If they think the policy was missold then they should go to Capital One and complain as Capital One will have missold it.

    They only get six months from the date AXA said no to go to FOS so they may want to do that and also complain to Capital One.

    If Capital One uphold then the AXA complaint would need to be withdrawn, but for now I would do both.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    Which suggests that MBNA may be likely to reject your complaint but if you persevere to FOS the odds will be in your favour.
    magpiecottage wrote: »
    You may be able to argue that they should have made you aware of the existence of the policy (since they sold it) and put you back into the position you would have been.


    …....

    The purpose of the redress is to put you into the position you would have been in had you never taken out the policy.

    If you believe they should have taken account of it and paid out on the policy, ask them to take that route instead.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    You can simply make a complaint to the insurance company. If the response is not to your satisfaction, go to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    If that is their response and you have been given no indication that there will be another, I suggest you go here and complain to FOS that they have overreacted and left you with no means of accessing cash or making any payment.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    If you are the sole beneficiary, I suggest you tell the building society that you are, that you are of majority and therefore, under the rule in Saunders v Vautier, you are teminating the trust and require them to issue the funds to you forthwith. They may (reasonably) ask for proof that you are who you say you are but once that is provided they cannot refuse.

    If they do, you should then complain. If they still do, you should go to FOS - again saying you have wound up the trust under Saunders v Vautier but they refuse to give you your money.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    Sounds like a clear missale. There is no "good" IFA here. There is a bogus IFA who is a crook. There is a real IFA who is an idiot because he signed off something without first checking it was suitable.

    The idiot is also almost certainly in breach of the rules of his network by attempting to influence the outcome of that complaint.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    Unless they actually asked you about the awareness course when you took out the policy - or at renewal - then demanding an additional premium because they found out now would seem to be a breach of the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012.

    So you can make a complaint to Admiral. If they still insist that you must pay extra you can take it to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

    Note, though, that even if they are forced to retract now, they can add a loading at renewal - so shop around next time.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    You can submit this form to whoever you are making the complaint to. Do remember to keep a copy and also remember to get proof of posting (free of charge from the post office).

    If you do not get a satisfactory answer within 8 weeks you can then ask FOS to intervene.

    If you are going to the underwriter and nobody there puts up the arguments I have made then it will probably be accepted for investigation.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    There is an argument that a 25 year endowment for a young person with no commitments or dependants was unsuitable. So you MAY be able to make a complaint.

    If upheld, it is likely that you would be paid what it would have achieved if invested against a hypothetical benchmark.

    I think your chances are probably about 50:50.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    Assuming the person dealing with it had access to the statements, I think they ought to have spotted it and initiated a claim.

    So I think that would seem to be a valid complaint.

    Of course, if it is rejected then that would suggest that the policy was unsuitable all along.

    So there may be a heads the consumer wins, tails the bank loses scenario.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    The complaint would be effective from the date that the email with the screenprint was sent.

    They have eight weeks from the date of the e-mail to respond.

    If the response is not satisfactory - or does not come in time - you can take it to the Financial Ombudsman Service online.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    The director would read it anyway. However, I think you can go to FOS now. You have obviously made clear to him that you are dissatisfied that his business has demanded money without explaining why.

    You have also asked that he communicate by letter only and he has ignored it.

    In addition, he has communicated with you via text during antisocial hours (i.e. after 9 p.m.)

    I suggest you go here and complete the form and submit it.


    On page 2, say that the firm has given a final written answer (it has sent a text!)

    Also say no legal action has started - this is important and why we want to get it before FOS now. Once they start legal action FOS will stand back (although if they have really sold on the debt then they cannot start legal action anyway).

    You can upload copies of the letters (and the texts if you can get hold of them)

    Page Three The business is Online Financial Solutions Limited, trading as Mortgage and Insurance Professionals. What you are unhappy about is "other", I think. The date of the transaction you are complaining about is the date of the first call. The reference is any reference on the first letter from them.

    The date you complained is the date you wrote asking for proof you owed the money. For the record, the final response is the subsequent text. The fact that you asked for communication by letter and it was ignored shows that your request will not be complied with.

    Get this submitted tonight if at all possible. That way it will be in the FOS system first thing tomorrow. If he then threatens you further, you can submit that to FOS as well.

    They will take even less kindly to a business that attempts to bully a complainant than a court will. It can call into question whether they are fit and proper.

    It can also bring the phoenixing to the attention of the regulator.



    magpiecottage wrote: »
    There have been a lot of complaints about Carrington Carr (if this site is anything to go by).

    If it was on or after 31 October 2004 that you applied for your mortgage you can complaint to Legal & General (free).

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    As a rule of thumb, FOS will not intervene in the exercise of legitimate commercial judgement by a business.

    However, whilst the premium a business chooses to charge for a particular risk is considered to be such commercial judgement, the cost of administering that change should be proportionate to the work involved.

    If it is charging £85 for work that only costs it £30 to administer the extra may be considered to be unfair because the respective rights of you and the insurer are disproportionate.

    So a complaint may well produce a climb down - particularly because if you did go to FOS there is a strong risk it would find in your favour (and if it did not the insurer would still have to pay a case fee - but the complainant would not whatever the outcome).

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    If you think that it was not clear then you can complain to Barclays.

    magpiecottage wrote: »
    Do you know who sold your mother the policy - and when?

    If they did not recommend it was put in trust, you may have grounds for complaint against them.


    Hopefully, by now, others will have formed their own opinions about whether your assertion is accurate or not.
    addedvaluebob wrote: »
    You constantly quote acts and legislation but it is nearly always to point out why the poster should not bother going any further.


    It is not my fault if they are looking to launch into a complaint on a flawed basis. It is your fault if you encourage them to waste their one chance in that way.
    addedvaluebob wrote: »
    In this thread you keep stating that the sale of a protection policy cannot possibly win because the legislation did not come in until later and would not apply to the original salesperson.
    Because that is correct if the firm responsible for the sale did not voluntarily subscribe to jurisdiction of FOS or a predecessor.
    addedvaluebob wrote: »
    To anyone looking at this thread please look at financial ombudsman decisions about sales of life assurance and protection policies before 2005.
    You will find that, as I have said before, all such complaints are against firms that submitted to the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service or a predecessor voluntarily at the time of the sale.

    addedvaluebob wrote: »
    Many of these cases would apparently had no chance using the logic of magpiecottage
    Wrong – in those cases the businesses responding to the complaint, which were banks, building societies or insurance companies, allowed FOS jurisdiction. The OP did not go to a bank, building society or lender. They went to a broker.

    You have accused the OP of being a liar about the status of the person arranging the policy
    What I actually said was
    magpiecottage wrote: »
    Oh - so I am wrong because the OP lied am I? For the record I find this an entirely fanciful idea.


    What part of
    magpiecottage wrote: »
    For the record I find this an entirely fanciful idea.
    do you not understand?

    Bottom line is that you want to dissuade as many people from making a complaint as possible
    The bottom line is that other readers can decide for themselves if they believe I have lied about you or not.


    They can also decide if they believe your assertions about me are true and/or honestly made by you or if you are simply a troll.
  • addedvaluebob
    addedvaluebob Posts: 478 Forumite
    So we bang the drum a little louder and pick a few quotes from the thousands of posts, the line of
    'Yet addedvaluebob has sought to apply powers that only existed from 14 January 2005 to events that took place in 2004 and also to apply an initiative launched by the FSA in 2006 to events that took place in 2004

    'just one more example where you seek to mislead people. You have related my experience to this complaint and yet you are well aware that a S166 has absolutely nothing to do with this complaint.


    You constantly judge cases based on a few lines from a poster and draw the inevitable conclusion that 'you will lose' and no I can't be bothered to quote all the times you have posted this in response to cases about which you know nothing. This thread is a case in point. The OP said mortgage broker but the FCA and their forerunners all recognised that the general public had a problems distinguishing between mortgage broker, financial adviser, and independent financial adviser particularly when they could be tied for mortgage but not for the sale of the attached policies and vice versa.

    You do not know for certain the status of the person who recommended the policy and yet have judged the case as absolutely being outside any regulatory remit.

    You post in the phrase 'its an explanation' and expect people to think that these are not accusatory statements, when challenged your response is 'it's a possible explanation' which is the worst kind of use of weasel words. You accused the OP of being a liar and now suggest that this was just a comment.

    You accuse me of breaking a number of laws and regulation but have nothing to substantiate it beyond your limited 'explanation' founded on nothing but your limited imagination and understanding

    You draw conclusions without merit or knowledge and I can only assume that you treat people who complain to your clients in the same fashion picking on every error and mis-quote to manage the complaint out the door.

    You clearly represent companies to whom people on this forum may complain, do you not think it is time your signature was updated to truly reflect your status as someone who earns a living from rejecting customer complaints to financial advisers and name the companies you represent so everyone would know when they are being discreetly managed out the door

    It is not my fault if they are looking to launch into a complaint on a flawed basis. It is your fault if you encourage them to waste their one chance in that way.

    Well that must be and Mr Lewis then because this whole financial forum around financial services complaints because of mis-selling is founded on the same principle.

    The bottom line is that people can work out if you have posted a complete pile of .... in an attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with you and your anti consumer bias
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture