IFA's fact find document untrue

addedvaluebob

dunstonh wrote: »

A factfind is just a record of what you told the adviser. If it contains incorrect information then it can be one of two things. The adviser recorded it incorrectly or you told them incorrectly.

or it could be that the adviser deliberately changed the factfind after the meeting adding information (yes I know this is the same as lying) or was too incompetent to do their job properly and ask enough questions or do enough groundwork to correctly identify the clients position. Clients frequently mis-state their own position due to a lack of understanding and product knowledge that doesn't mean that any adviser should just write it down without checking or contacting the provider company. If the adviser has falsified information you should raise a formal complaint

dunstonh

addedvaluebob wrote: »

or it could be that the adviser deliberately changed the factfind after the meeting adding information (yes I know this is the same as lying) or was too incompetent to do their job properly and ask enough questions or do enough groundwork to correctly identify the clients position. Clients frequently mis-state their own position due to a lack of understanding and product knowledge that doesn't mean that any adviser should just write it down without checking or contacting the provider company. If the adviser has falsified information you should raise a formal complaint

There is no requirement for checking or contacting the provider. Personally, I do but its not a requirement.

Still doesnt change the fact that the OP signed to say it was correct. It would be a stronger complaint if it was not signed. However, there is actually nothing wrong from switching from MPPI to CI.

marchart

The fact find states that I had NO COVER and that if I was off work I would receive FULL PAY FOR 12 MONTHS. I have concrete evidence that both of these statements are incorrect. As for signing the document, I invited the advisor into my home for advice on two pensions and a separate investment. I had to sign quite a few documents regarding this business and would have been there all night if I had read them all. There is no doubt in my mind that I was delierately misled, my only fear is that this so called fact find document seems to hold more weight than two official documents that contradict it.

dunstonh

The fact find states that I had NO COVER and that if I was off work I would receive FULL PAY FOR 12 MONTHS.

In what context is the factfind saying that. Is it in respect of employer benefits?

For example, our factfind has a similar section but you only list employer bits in there.

As for signing the document, I invited the advisor into my home for advice on two pensions and a separate investment. I had to sign quite a few documents regarding this business and would have been there all night if I had read them all.

But you still signed it.

There is no doubt in my mind that I was delierately misled, my only fear is that this so called fact find document seems to hold more weight than two official documents that contradict it.

Possibly you were. However, the outcome is what is usually looked at with these things. There is nothing wrong with the outcome (replacing MPPI with CI) and you are not out of pocket because of this.

Ultimately, no-one here knows the outcome of a complaint. We dont have enough to go on. However, there is actually nothing wrong with the transaction that took place as CI is in the pecking order above MPPI and you dont appear to be out of pocket.

So, what are you looking to achieve?

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

or it could be that the adviser deliberately changed the factfind after the meeting adding information (yes I know this is the same as lying)

It could - but there is unlikely to be any evidence.

or was too incompetent to do their job properly and ask enough questions or do enough groundwork to correctly identify the clients position.

or they asked the correct question but were given the wrong answer.

Clients frequently mis-state their own position due to a lack of understanding and product knowledge that doesn't mean that any adviser should just write it down without checking or contacting the provider company.

COBS 9.2.5 R says "A firm is entitled to rely on the information provided by its clients unless it is aware that the information is manifestly out of date, inaccurate or incomplete."

If the adviser has falsified information you should raise a formal complaint

Yes but, based on the fact that the fact find has been signed, as DunstonH says, the OP faces an uphill, though not unwinnable, battle.

marchart

To be honest I am quite shocked at the way this thread has developed. I was looking for answers regarding the weight that is given to a so called fact find document against official documents and I thank the contributions from those that have tried to explain. What I am not impressed with is the attitude of other financial advisors trying to defend the actions of what I thought was a rogue advisor. I am tempted to believe that they might be all the same.

HappyHarry

Marchart,

Your initial post implies that you wish to claim for miss-selling, but you haven't shown any loss, and so it is not clear what you are claiming for.

Have you complained to the IFA?

What was the outcome?

Have you taken the complaint to the FOS?

What was the outcome?

Asking people's views on this site regarding their opinion on the weighting of a signed document, whilst interesting, will not give you the resolution you are looking for. A genuine complaint from yourself will not cost you anything, and many here would be interested to see the outcome.

There are a lot of IFAs on here who, quite rightly, despise those who 'try it on'. You may be coming across as such. Even inadvertently.

However, all good IFAs would prefer that genuinely poor IFAs would remove themselves, or be forced out of, the advisory business. This is because their actions constantly undermine the good work of the majority.

Most of the IFA commentators on here are likely to be the "good guys".

As a note, a fact find signed by you as correct is likely to be weighted in favour of the IFA. But if this is untrue, and you have been deliberately miss-sold to, then most of the IFAs here would be championing your corner.

Please let us all know the outcome.

dunstonh

What I am not impressed with is the attitude of other financial advisors trying to defend the actions of what I thought was a rogue advisor.

No-one is defending anyone. The problem is that you have not told us what you are trying to achieve.

We have just said that the actual transaction of replacing an MPPI with CI is ok. Also, that the factfind may be referring to employer benefits only and the fact you signed to say it was correct works against you. We have also said we dont know the outcome of a complaint as we dont have enough info.

We have also asked questions to find out more. Some very important ones but you have not answered them.

I am tempted to believe that they might be all the same.

Dont get ill as Harold Shipman was a murderer and that must mean all GPs are by your reckoning.

However, all good IFAs would prefer that genuinely poor IFAs would remove themselves, or be forced out of, the advisory business.

Spot on.

magpiecottage

marchart wrote: »

To be honest I am quite shocked at the way this thread has developed. I was looking for answers regarding the weight that is given to a so called fact find document against official documents and I thank the contributions from those that have tried to explain.

I think that has been answered - your signature on the document suggests strongly that you were given an opportunity to check and sign it.

Addedvaluebob has suggested it may have been fraudulently altered afterwards but you have not said anything to indicate that was the case and, if it is not reasonably obvious, anybody investigating your complaint would not see it either.

What I am not impressed with is the attitude of other financial advisors trying to defend the actions of what I thought was a rogue advisor. I am tempted to believe that they might be all the same.

In terms of a complaint, FOS would seek to put you back into the position you would have been in but for the misselling.

In this case, you have apparently had no cause to claim on the CI policy, so it has cost you the monthly premium × the number of months you have had it. You are therefore entitled to that sum minus what you would have paid, which is the same monthly premium × the same number of months.

This will come to zero. Only if you actually had been able to claim on the old policy but were unable to claim on the new one would there be a reason for the complaint to be upheld.

This is neither condoning nor condemning the adviser - it is simply stating the reality, which is that you cannot prove the adviser was at fault or that you have lost anything.