Standard Life endowment misselling?

philharnott

You are right. It is what I meant but perhaps I should have said problem instead of reason.

societys_child

philharnott wrote: »

To FOS within 6 months of a business's final response so should be fine.

When was the final response? No update posted since early January.

philharnott

Agree with your point on this too and I should have stated this, as you have, to be clearer. I would only comment to try to be helpful and I recognise your knowledge & experience respectfully. My reference to special rules was from FOS site but maybe I've misinterpreted what I read. Thanks for your courteous responses.

philharnott

Maybe the matter has been sorted or abandoned.

TrickyDicky101

The 3 year period would have started from when the OP sold the policy - and we aren't told when that was, but let's assume OP had a standard 25 year term then the endowment would have matured in 2012. Since OP sold it before maturity then the 3 year limit expired at least 3 years ago.

philharnott

I am not ' spreading false information ' and I don't consider that I have made a statement of fact. Note the use of if/would/could/might etc. I would only intend to try to be helpful and would always welcome constructive comment and advice. It's OK to be wrong.

philharnott

TrickyDicky101 wrote: »

The 3 year period would have started from when the OP sold the policy - and we aren't told when that was, but let's assume OP had a standard 25 year term then the endowment would have matured in 2012. Since OP sold it before maturity then the 3 year limit expired at least 3 years ago.

I agree. My interpretation was that it was not the problem of the policy not realising a particular amount of money that a complaint might be made but possibly about the statement made by the company about the amount. On reflection I feel that the FOS would be obliged by the three year deadline under...' or could have realised '.....

[Deleted User]

Thank you for your contribution to this thread, "philharnott", much appreciated I'm sure.

societys_child

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Thank you for your contribution to this thread, "philharnott", much appreciated I'm sure.

Indeed, I feel by resurrecting this old thread, he has in some way enriched all our lives

Nasqueron

philharnott wrote: »

I am not ' spreading false information ' and I don't consider that I have made a statement of fact. Note the use of if/would/could/might etc. I would only intend to try to be helpful and would always welcome constructive comment and advice. It's OK to be wrong.

Telling someone that they can ignore a legally binding time bar on the incorrect statement that the 3 year rule can be started when they want it to start is false information.

The 3 year rule is

three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint

That includes things like closing an account, the lender writing to you etc. As the OP sold the policy because it was not performing then that is a trigger for the 3 year rule. The fact they were contacted by this claims firm many years later does not somehow start a new 3 year period