Reclaiming PPI- Arranged via independent financial advisor

addedvaluebob

n my experience yes. I have never seen any evidence of the misconduct addedvaluebob alleges and, despite repeated requests from me and other postes that he produce evidence to support those allegations he has have never done so.

I suggest that this is because he has no such evidence.
But the argument is whether they misrepresented their status, NOT whether they missold.
So when he saysthat, too is a misrepresentation.

and when he says but produces no evidence whatsoever to support that allegation, I am not inclined to believe it either.

When I consider that an adviser will produce a document giving his status, it seems most unlikely that he would then risk saying something different and making himself look foolish if his client realised. He would also have no way of knowing.

So lets revisit TR 14/6 from the FCA that has been posted before

31% of firms failed to meet the requirements for disclosing their restricted status.
The key issues for the firms surveyed were:
• 12% of restricted firms surveyed did not disclose, in a durable medium and/or in a timely manner, that they were restricted.
• 19% of restricted firms surveyed did not use the word ‘restricted’ in their disclosure.
• 23% of firms surveyed failed to clearly disclose the nature of the restriction.
• 15% of firms surveyed provided contradictory information on the nature of their restriction.



http://www.fca.org.uk/news/tr14-6-supervising-retail-investment-firms
Perhaps you missed it but it certainly makes the point regarding how some advisers represent themselves to the public. This was visited some years before but clearly you missed both this paper and the previous reports and findings

I think that is a question better asked of addedvaluebob himself than of me.
.
After all, when he saysit seems clearly intended to infer that I have said something which I have most certainly not.

Another misrepresentation. I do not normally call other posters conspiracy theorists. However, the content of addedvaluebob's posts lead me to the conclusion that he is either a conspiracy theorist who is self-deluded or a troll who has no other purpose than to sow discord.

Oh I see, personal insults again please tell everybody on here who you work for

I appreciate that I said what the OP had told us would only indicate missellling to a conspiracy theorist. I stand by that opinion. A troll would make the same representation with total disregard to the fact that it was, or may be false.


I ask others to look at my words, not addedvaluebob's misrepresentation of them.

On second thoughts, probably better to compare what I actually said with what addedvaluebob has tried to have you believe I said.

You can then judge for yourselves whether you consider his testimony to be reliable.
And there is the real problem.

"addedvaluebob on MSE says lots of advisers missold policies so it necessarily follows that my adviser missold my policy" is, in my professional opinion, unlikely to persuade an ombudsman to uphold a complaint.

Thhat is a misrepresentation

If somebody puts a case that seems to have merit, I will tell them so.

You are more interested in persuading people from complaining than supporting them. You cannot judge with any certainty a fraction of the enquiries posted on here but seem to have some magical ability to know everything about every case and reach a final conclusion as to the merits or chances of success

On the other hand, if the case they are putting seems flawed it is, I think, better to learn of those flaws before putting the complaint in than being told about them by an ombudsman because they will only get one chance.

You put forward a biased viewpoint intended to dissuade people from complaining should you not post the names of the companies you represent so people can judge if they are mistakenly taking your opinion and giving up complaints against your clients.

So in closing

My point was that advisers have misrepresented themselves to the public. Moneyineptitude says it never happened and why would an adviser do it?

The FCA review covered 113 companies and includes this quote

'In our view, the level of non-compliance we identified and the failure of firms to meet their regulatory requirements is unacceptable.'

Clearly he has little knowledge of the facts that are readily available

addedvaluebob

I'll try and explain this as briefly as I can.

You failed

They are made because they are put up to it by third party ambulance chasers or because they have heard about others getting money fancy a bit of it and are therefore fishing to see if they can try and construct a complaint

.

This site has promoted millions of complainant to' have a go' because it only costs a stamp surely you should be directing your energy at getting this site removed

The OP in this instance appears to fall into the latter category.

The OP says 'Can anyone advise if these are the policies that may have been missold'

Again, it is on the proposed complainant to establish a case, not anyone else to disestablish it.

My point was always that the OP was chastised for not identifying that their IFA was in fact a tied adviser and was told, without any real evidence that the sale was okay. The following from magpiecottage

They also say that they had a mortgage and the policies covered that mortgage. So unless there was a mismatch between the level of cover and the mortgage liability, or the OP would never have been able to make a successful claim, the product seems to have met a particular need.

As for the comment "lots of potential for misselling", it just sounds exactly like something a CMC ambulance chaser would write

.

By the way, I am retired and have been for a while now

No it sounds like something that would be said by someone who understands financial advice and over 20 plus years in financial services has seen every trick and misrepresentation that advisers have dreamt up to make a sale whilst earning commission and disadvantaging the customers.

In this instance:

Did the adviser take into account any existing policies that could have been used to cover part of the sum assured?

Could the ASU pay out?

Did they sell a whole of life policy when a 25 year term would be suitable (rare but not unknown)

Did they sell a level term policy instead of a decreasing term for a repayment mortgage.

and despite not knowing any of these facts, and many others magpiecottage thinks the policy was suitable.

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

So lets revisit TR 14/6 from the FCA that has been posted before

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Clearly he has little knowledge of the facts that are readily available

I know that "14" in TR 14/6 relates to 2014. The OP says he purchased the policy in 2007. There is a seven year discrepancy.

It would seem that addedvaluebob is unaware of this.

TR14/6 relates to a change in the regulator's definiton of "independent". This only relates to investment business. PPI is not investment business. The estate agent the OP tells us he bought the plan from is an Appointed Representative of Connells, who do not sell investment business.

Again, addedvaluebob does not seem to appreciate this.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

The FCA review covered 113 companies[

addedvaluebob wrote: »

31% of firmsfailed to meet the requirements for disclosing their restricted status.

31% of 113 is 35.

In 2013, something like 17,000 businesses that had previously been permitted to describe themselves as independent were told that they could no longer do so not because the nature of their business had changed but because the regulator had moved the goal posts.

In the immediate aftermath of that change, it found 35 out of that 17,000 who had got it wrong.

Clearly the regulator could not tell them it was okay not to meet the standard it set but it clearly has very little evidence.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Oh I see, personal insults again

It is nothing of the sort, it is a statement of my conclusions based on my observations.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

please tell everybody on here who you work for

I am a little surprised that somebody who professes to be a compliance expert would incite me to break forum rules - and that they would have no concept of client confidentiality.

Thhat is a misrepresentation

Again it is nothing of the sort. The fact remains that I do not believe an ombudsman would be swayed by a complainant arguing that an anonymous poster on MSE.com

addedvaluebob wrote: »

You are more interested in persuading people from complaining than supporting them.

You cannot judge with any certainty a fraction of the enquiries posted on here but seem to have some magical ability to know everything about every case and reach a final conclusion as to the merits or chances of success

I ask others to read what I have written, as opposed to what addedvaluebob says I have written, and judge for themselves whether I have reached a conclusion other than that the information that the OP has given to date would be insufficient to cause a complaint to be upheld - a view I continue to stand by.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

should you not post the names of the companies you represent so people can judge if they are mistakenly taking your opinion and giving up complaints against your clients.

I do not work for the firm that this OP has a grievance with but that is irrelevant. All he has told us is that he took out a policy. He has not told us anything else. It is not illegal to sell PPI and, particularly in the case of a mortgage, it is considered a wise thing to buy it.

If he has any chance of making a successful complaint, he must address the specific issue(s) which made the sale unsuitable.

So if he wants to proceed he has a choice.

He can take addedvaluebob's approach, which, it seems to me, is "throw mud at the adviser and hope it sticks" or he can take my approach, which is to explore what, if any, genuine failings there might be and, if there are any, whether it can be shown that they made a difference.

The OP has asked

1. If any of his policies might have been missold (to which the answer is "yes" because it is possible for anything to be missold)
2. Whether he should complain to the estate agent or Legal & General (to which he was told Legal & General.).
3. For any help people mght be able to offer - to which I have said he has not told us anything that would cause a complaint to be upheld - and that after a week he has not added anything so my view is unchanged.

I am not entirely sure that Legal & General would be the correct firm to direct a complaint to as Connells, Allen & Harris' parent, has been directly authorised since 2004. So I think it would be to Connells.


However, there is no point in making a complaint simply on the grounds that the policy existed.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

My point was that advisers have misrepresented themselves to the public.

I have never said otherwise. However, one cannot argue simply that because of the wrongdoing of some advisers all must do the same. That is the logic that Donald Trump uses to say that all muslims should be banned from the US.

In both cases it is folly.

addedvaluebob

I know that "14" in TR 14/6 relates to 2014

Well good for you, aren't you clever

The OP says he purchased the policy in 2007. There is a seven year discrepancy.

My word you will scratch every last chance to undermine someone else opinion

It would seem that addedvaluebob is unaware of this

No, I already knew the 14 was 2014 and that there was a 7 year difference. I chose this paper because mpc said quite clearly there was no evidence of this happening. The suggestion of mpc that obviously things must have been better 7 years before the regulation was tightened up (presumably because the financial advisers were previously doing such a bang up job of being honest when declaring their status and commission

addedvaluebob

31% of 113 is 35.

and 31% of 17,000 is 5,270, it is called statistical sampling, a fact that mpc seems to be unaware of

In 2013, something like 17,000 businesses that had previously been permitted to describe themselves as independent were told that they could no longer do so not because the nature of their business had changed but because the regulator had moved the goal posts

.

The regulator tried to make them come clean about their status because the public was being misled. Do we think they were misled more or less in 2007, the public can decide whether this was possible or to believe mpc that everything was much better in 2007.

In the immediate aftermath of that change, it found 35 out of that 17,000 who had got it wrong.

This is a complete falsehood. If they had sampled all 17,000 it would be true but mpc would rather distort the truth in a desperate attempt to defend his clients position in convincing the public that nothing has ever been done wrong in the financial services community that presided over the

pension miss-elling
endowment
PPI
investment switching
pension switching

reviews/scandals that have led to billions in redress/compensation and regulatory fines

Insider101

addedvaluebob wrote: »

You failed

Well done. You dragged me down to your level and beat me with experience!

This site has promoted millions of complainant to' have a go' because it only costs a stamp surely you should be directing your energy at getting this site removed

Large amounts of what is written on this site is nonsense (if you have been rejected before and not gone to the Ombudsman you can "try again", if you are having trouble filling in a PPI consumer questionnaire phone the Ombudsman). However, they do at least make the following clear:

Is every PPI policy bad?
No. Payment Protection Insurance itself isn't a bad product. But it's been widely mis-sold with thousands of loans, leaving many paying hundreds for potentially worthless cover.

The OP says 'Can anyone advise if these are the policies that may have been missold'

And also:

"Can anyone advise if these are the policies that may have been missold and if so, who would I make the claim against"

My point was always that the OP was chastised for not identifying that their IFA was in fact a tied adviser and was told, without any real evidence that the sale was okay. The following from magpiecottage

They also say that they had a mortgage and the policies covered that mortgage. So unless there was a mismatch between the level of cover and the mortgage liability, or the OP would never have been able to make a successful claim, the product seems to have met a particular need.

OK with regards to the first point. With regards to the second, Magpie is correct.
.

By the way, I am retired and have been for a while now

How's the gardening going?

No it sounds like something that would be said by someone who understands financial advice and over 20 plus years in financial services has seen every trick and misrepresentation that advisers have dreamt up to make a sale whilst earning commission and disadvantaging the customers.

You can say the same for any industry. You are still talking about a very small minority.

In this instance:

Did the adviser take into account any existing policies that could have been used to cover part of the sum assured?

Could the ASU pay out?

Did they sell a whole of life policy when a 25 year term would be suitable (rare but not unknown)

Did they sell a level term policy instead of a decreasing term for a repayment mortgage.

and despite not knowing any of these facts, and many others magpiecottage thinks the policy was suitable.

In his comment Magpie offered most of the same caveats you have just put.

MagpieCottage wrote:

unless there was a mismatch between the level of cover and the mortgage liability, or the OP would never have been able to make a successful claim, the product seems to have met a particular need.

But there is no indication of any of the supposed wrongdoing that you have just quoted. As per my previous post, improper advice is a minority and it's up to any complainant to establish a case. There is nothing to indicate any wrongdoing on this thread other than the fact that the OP has taken out insurance to cover a mortgage, a prudent course of action that most people take.

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

My word you will scratch every last chance to undermine someone else opinion

On the contrary, I will point out where I have identified a flaw in the argument

addedvaluebob wrote: »

I already knew the 14 was 2014 and that there was a 7 year difference. I chose this paper because mpc said quite clearly there was no evidence of this happening.

And the seven year difference is one of the flaws that I identified in the argument.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

The suggestion of mpc that obviously things must have been better 7 years before the regulation was tightened up (presumably because the financial advisers were previously doing such a bang up job of being honest when declaring their status and commission

The word "presumably" tells us that addedvaluebob does not know. The fact is that commission was always declared. Even if the adviser failed to do so, the product provider would always write to the customer and tell them. The way this would work is that when an application was accepted, a standard letter was automatically produced and sent.

So arguing that commission was not declared is the second flaw.

The third the flaw is that the report to which addedvaluebob refers relates to investment advisers only and the OP has not asked about investment advisers. It is a bit like saying don't travel by train because a ship might sink.

Or, for that matter, Robert Maxwell stole people's pensions so addedvaluebob must steal people's pensions because he is called Robert too.

It is a silly argument.

In the end, though, I think the OP has used the term "independent financial adviser" in the same way that people call all vacuum cleaners hoovers whether or not Hoover actually made them.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Lots of potential for mis-selling but cannot be judged without proper details

This is true but I do not see any reason, why when I provide a perfectly plausible explanation why it might not have been missold (and one which even by his own convoluted argument seems to have a 79% chance of being true), addedvaluebob chooses to then pick a fight over it.

addedvaluebob

On the contrary, I will point out where I have identified a flaw in the argument And the seven year difference is one of the flaws that I identified in the argument.

The flaw is entirely yours your earlier statement in this thread is clear in this respect.

When I consider that an adviser will produce a document giving his status, it seems most unlikely that he would then risk saying something different and making himself look foolish if his client realised.

It seems most unlikely to mpc who lives in a different world to the reality of financial advice - but not to one third of advisers in the reports from the Financial Conduct Authorty

The word "presumably" tells us that addedvaluebob does not know.

It is called ironic comment, used to highlight the ridiculous position of the argument

The fact is that commission was always declared.

Did you bother to read the report or did you stop at the front apge when you decided to base your argument on the date of publication.

and this little gem

Evidence dear boy. You cant prove something was not issued.

From the same report.

50% of firms failed to meet the requirements for disclosing the client-specific costs.

So that shoots down this nonsense

So arguing that commission was not declared is the second flaw.

The third the flaw is that the report to which addedvaluebob refers relates to investment advisers only and the OP has not asked about investment advisers.

So given that you don't get irony, I will spell it out, advsiers have misled the public over their status and charges. The suggestion that all other sales must be alright because this only relates to investment sales is utter utter nonsense.

I do not see any reason, why when I provide a perfectly plausible explanation why it might not have been missold (and one which even by his own convoluted argument seems to have a 79% chance of being true), addedvaluebob chooses to then pick a fight over it.

It is the misleading certainty with which you post that misleads the public much like the advisers you defend for a living. I don't pick fights I highlight a different view.

100-31 = 69

dunstonh

It seems daft arguing over whether tied investment advisers are pretending to be IFAs or not. The OP didn't see an FA or an IFA. They saw a tied insurance rep.

The disclosure requirements for IFAs and FAs are different to mortgage advisers.

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

It seems daft arguing over whether tied investment advisers are pretending to be IFAs or not. The OP didn't see an FA or an IFA. They saw a tied insurance rep.

The disclosure requirements for IFAs and FAs are different to mortgage advisers.

Absolutely.

So getting back to the original point, the original sale was not by an independet or a tied adviser.

The OP has told us he was sold unemployment and sickness cover and critical illness cover for a mortgage.

There would be a need to clear the loan in the event of a critical illness and the policy would be underwritten at outset so unless there was a mismatch between the level or term of the cover and the loan this would not be a missale. The OP has not told us of such a mismatch so for anybody else to suggest otherwise is pure speculation.

Similarly, the OP's home would be at risk if he could not keep up repayments so on that basis the sickness and unemployment cover would be suitable. If the OP had alternative sickness cover that might mean it was unsuitable but the risk of unemployment was still there so it is more likely that it would simply be of less value than to a somebody with less sickness cover. The OP has not told us this so there is little point in speculating about it.

This policy might not pay out if it turned out that there was some factor that would have prevented the policy paying out but once more, the OP has not told us of any such issue.

In the event of a complaint by the OP, these are the points on which it would be assessed - not on whether other advisers have missold or even whether the same adviser has missold to other people.