Strange letter from Arriva

dunstonh

Please ignore agarnett. Most of the regulars here have him on ignore. His post has no relevance to this thread and is wrong. indeed, I am starting to believe he takes pleasure in telling people the wrong thing on purpose. Unfortunately, the board do not react to posts reported to them on that basis. Instead, other posters have to point it out.

There is a regulatory requirement for providers to trace people who have gone missing. There is no tin foil hat conspiracy.

I have regular experience of these tracing events as usually the provider will try the IFA or servicing agent first to see if they have a current address before they employ the tracing company. Sometimes these are through genuine house moves where the person hasnt notified the provider. Sometimes it is through data cleansing where there is an inconsistency in the data. Sometimes it is where paper records were poorly transferred to computer records through human error.

agarnett

dunstonh wrote: »

Please ignore agarnett. Most of the regulars here have him on ignore. His post has no relevance to this thread and is wrong. indeed, I am starting to believe he takes pleasure in telling people the wrong thing on purpose. Unfortunately, the board do not react to posts reported to them on that basis. Instead, other posters have to point it out.

There is a regulatory requirement for providers to trace people who have gone missing. There is no tin foil hat conspiracy.

I have regular experience of these tracing events as usually the provider will try the IFA or servicing agent first to see if they have a current address before they employ the tracing company. Sometimes these are through genuine house moves where the person hasnt notified the provider. Sometimes it is through data cleansing where there is an inconsistency in the data. Sometimes it is where paper records were poorly transferred to computer records through human error.

The board perhaps do not react to your bleatings about my criticisms of posts like yours dunstonh, because you have unfortunately developed a habit of holding back on the full truth on here.

You seem to think that punters don't need to be told the truths behind these things on a "what they don't know is unlikely to hurt them much" basis - i.e. perhaps you consider that the greater good is that they need your industry more than they need my criticisms of it, so they should not be exposed to any doubts about that ?

Unfortunately for your industry, my post is entirely true.

My two direct examples which would simply never have happened if the UK had the same system of NINo address being sacrosanct and auto-accessible by all financial services companies and utility companies as standard.

Tell us the full truth since you have so much experience - what are the points on the timeline that deals with accounts which organisations like Friends Life and Aviva have labelled as untraced or "contact details/identity compromised"?

Tell us the steps that get taken when the re-linking of de-linked accounts is "not successful". What happens to the funds in such accounts? At what point does Aviva's duty to keep writing to its policyholder cease (thereafter making discovery by the actual owner of the funds even more unlikely in the future)?

I shall continue rectifying your over-rosey and sadly too optimistic / "don't worry it's legit and it's normal" type statements on the way your industry works for as long as I notice them and MSE allows my comments to stand.

You know which side your bread is buttered, and so do I.

Make your judgements more rounded and you'll see less of me.

gmatkin

Thanks folks. Clearly this is genuine and I must take steps to comply.

Gavin

System

HI

"Still, we've filled in the personal details, as requested, just in case there's a pot of gold somewhere....."

I got one, and some months later a cheque for a CockUp by AXA.

NB: The intent is to put you back to where you would have been if the CU didn't happen. You may want to contest the calculations/premise for the amount in writing, as, if interest is calculated it is probably 1% above bank rate, which does not really reflect actual investment returns,

You valuation may be higher.

woolly_wombat

johndough wrote: »

NB: The intent is to put you back to where you would have been if the CU didn't happen.

Yes, it was reported more than two years ago that Aviva "faces huge payouts over breaches of terms and conditions".

See http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2554472/Four-million-savers-short-changed-Aviva-compensation-Insurers-323million-bill-merger-blunder.html

.....An industry source said: ‘This whole thing is an absolute mess and Aviva’s handling of it has been a total shambles.

‘It is something the company has been aware of for many years and yet they’re not getting any closer to the root of the problems. In fact, they’ve been finding that the failures have been multiplying, affecting hundreds of thousands more policyholders in the process.’

Problems are believed to have started after the merger of Norwich Union and CGU in 2000. Policies run by both groups were transferred to a central system.

But many of the specific terms and conditions in customer contracts were not applied correctly.....