Compensation question

gran_in_space

Hi

This is following on from my original thread - I tried to put a link of my other thread but won't let me because I am a new user. The title to it is "Wrong advice from bank on investment" posted 13th instant.

Regarding the mis-sold investment to us by our bank, they will offer compensation on all four options they've given us to choose from for the outcome. However! The way their letter reads is it will only be if their calculations show we have made a loss through their wrong advice.

Are we to assume from that, they will not offer compensation if we have not made a loss or have just broken even?

If the latter is correct, should we expect (or even seek) compensation anyway when they knew our circumstances at the time but they still sold us the product? We have only been informed of their error just a month over six years after we took the investment out.
　
Does the six year lapse create a problem regarding seeking compensation if we decide to? Thanks in advance for helpful comments/advice


gran

dunstonh

However! The way their letter reads is it will only be if their calculations show we have made a loss through their wrong advice.

That is correct. Redress is required to put you back in the position you would have been if the transaction had not taken place. If the advice made you better off then you get to keep that but you will not receive any more money.

Are we to assume from that, they will not offer compensation if we have not made a loss or have just broken even?

The calculation is purely based on whether the alternative put you in a better position or not.

If the latter is correct, should we expect (or even seek) compensation anyway when they knew our circumstances at the time but they still sold us the product?

No.Although sometimes they may add £25-£50 for inconvenience but you are not entitled to any more. After all, you would have gained already from the product.

PeacefulWaters

You could have just added a post to your original thread.

And used a standard font!

gran_in_space

Dunstonh thank you SO much for your comments. It says it all and is so much help, clearly defined advice and I am very grateful for it. We know which way to go now but we needed to ask. Thank you again, very much obliged.

gran_in_space

@Peaceful.... My reply was typed in word and copied and pasted here, I apologise if you don't like the font. As for not posting on original thread, that was because I didn't want to be ignored because of maybe? Some peeps complacency, so did a new thread to glean some different responses which I have. Thank you for your input however....every little helps said the old woman......etc etc

Bogalot

dunstonh wrote: »

That is correct. Redress is required to put you back in the position you would have been if the transaction had not taken place. If the advice made you better off then you get to keep that but you will not receive any more money.



The calculation is purely based on whether the alternative put you in a better position or not.



No.Although sometimes they may add £25-£50 for inconvenience but you are not entitled to any more. After all, you would have gained already from the product.

Just a point on the additional compensation the bank may offer, I've recently handled a very similar complaint for a family member and the bank initially offered £100 as an apology for inconvenience and for not addressing the issue at an earlier point, and when pushed they doubled this. I had researched cases with the ombudsman where amounts up to £300 were recommended, so we were happy to settle for £200.

Your advice is correct (as always), the bank does not have to offer any more, but given the amounts they offer people for the most minor of issues, I certainly would not be settling for £50.

dunstonh

Bogalot wrote: »

Just a point on the additional compensation the bank may offer, I've recently handled a very similar complaint for a family member and the bank initially offered £100 as an apology for inconvenience and for not addressing the issue at an earlier point, and when pushed they doubled this. I had researched cases with the ombudsman where amounts up to £300 were recommended, so we were happy to settle for £200.

Your advice is correct (as always), the bank does not have to offer any more, but given the amounts they offer people for the most minor of issues, I certainly would not be settling for £50.

Yes, it can vary. N&P did a similar exercise a few years back and also paid an IFA of the persons choosing £500 to verify the outcome on top of the redress.

Some of the outcomes in these reviews are jammy for the consumer. Some are far more serious. The level of "goodwill" payment may well reflect some of that.

gran_in_space

Hi, thanks for posting to my questions. Sorry to bother you further but after reading what Bogalot has said I wwould like to ask about the following.

When we finally decide and complete the form the bank sent for us to choose our option (1 of 4) the wording is "...(whatever their option is...) together with any compensation for the position we would have been in had we invested in (the other investment)...in full and final settlement of any claims that we may have in connection with the advice we received from

---

Bank in relation to the PIP"

We have to sign this before they do any calculations and advise us of outcome so is it correct to assume we sign away any right to mention compensation once this is signed?

Also because they will only deal with any queries over the telephone not face to face and neither of us is fully able to do this because of disabilities we have using the phone, would it be reasonable for us to ask if they would pay for an IFA for his/her advice or questions we have?

Once again many thanks for your help and for putting up with a financially illiterate old duffer.

gran
　

dunstonh

We have to sign this before they do any calculations and advise us of outcome so is it correct to assume we sign away any right to mention compensation once this is signed?

No. Initially, this is to let them know what you want to do in terms of method. You wont be able to switch methods but if the amount is wrong, in your opinion, then you will still be able to argue that point.

Also because they will only deal with any queries over the telephone not face to face and neither of us is fully able to do this because of disabilities we have using the phone, would it be reasonable for us to ask if they would pay for an IFA for his/her advice or questions we have?

You can ask. You may not get but if you dont ask you will never know. I already mentioned N&P. They paid £500 towards and IFA in all cases. Another S166 review was Sesame and they paid an amount towards an IFA review on the more serious failures but not the minor ones. In both cases, the money for the IFA went straight to the IFA. Not the individual.

Your failing is not a serious one. It is a bit of a lucky one for you. So, not sure they will stump up the money for that.