Abbey National/ Chase de Vere/ AWD/ The wrong person has info about me!

Tolkny

In the Eighties I took out a series of mortgages with Abbey National against Standard Life Endowments (both were then mutuals!)

On advice of maturity Standard life tell me that a firm I never heard of AWD are or were my financial adviser.

On querying they tell me they suspect that when I approached Abbey National although I went into their local branch and never approached another company somehow an Abbey National owned firm got involved as adviser one, Chase de Vere. At some point Chase de Vere have changed ownership to AWD and my details have been updated with them being recorded as my financial adviser, although I believed that I was only ever dealing direct with Abbey and Standard Life.

I thought financial regulation was supposed to stop this sort of covert thing, I do not believe I was ever told about either Chase or AWD but now I have at least instructed Std Life to remove reference to AWD from their files who it seems would have been given info about my insurance policy maturity without me taking action.

This is wrong, why does parliament permit such things?

dreamylittledream

Yes

OKay long story this one but Abbey National IFA (a sub company of Abbey) would have sold your policy.

They were sold to Chase de Vere in the 90s who in turn became AWD a few years ago.

AWD will be recorded as the 'servicing agent' as they would have been receiving the trail commision for the sale of your policy.

I wouldn't worry as they would not have been recorded as having any interest in the proceeds of the policy - they could just obtain information only.

Would only really come into play if you had made a mis-selling complaint about the advice you were given which would now be directed at AWD.

EdInvestor

Tolkny wrote: »

I do not believe I was ever told about either Chase or AWD

Standard Life usually notes the name of the advisor/agent on your annual bonus statement.

dunstonh

Yes

This is wrong, why does parliament permit such things?

Because there is nothing wrong with this. Companies get bought out by others. It happens all the time.

I thought financial regulation was supposed to stop this sort of covert thing,

What is covert in mergers and acquisitions?

I do not believe I was ever told about either Chase or AWD but now I have at least instructed Std Life to remove reference to AWD from their files who it seems would have been given info about my insurance policy maturity without me taking action.

As servicing agent they are fully entitled to that information until you appoint a new servicing agent. AWD will have all your files anyway from when you purchased the product.

Tolkny

No

My point was I only ever dealt with the mortgagee and insurer, no other agent was involved. I went to a branch of the mortgagee and told them what I wanted and did the same with the insurer. I had no mis selling claim because I did my own research and made a decision, with hindsight the wrong one and then went ahead and the companies agreed the business with no agents involved.

dunstonh

Yes

Tolkny wrote: »

My point was I only ever dealt with the mortgagee and insurer, no other agent was involved. I went to a branch of the mortgagee and told them what I wanted and did the same with the insurer. I had no mis selling claim because I did my own research and made a decision, with hindsight the wrong one and then went ahead and the companies agreed the business with no agents involved.

You may have thought that was the case but the endowment application would have to have been processed through (what is now) an IFA. You never dealt with the insurance company but the agent. The agent dealt with the insurance company. Legally, you are a customer of that agent.

All policies from all companies (some tied agent providers excluded) will have an agent allocated to the policy. This is usually the original selling agent unless you change agents later.

With the exception of mergers and acquisitions, the agent cannot be changed without your authorisation.

EdInvestor

Tolkny wrote: »

My point was I only ever dealt with the mortgagee and insurer, no other agent was involved. I went to a branch of the mortgagee and told them what I wanted and did the same with the insurer. I had no mis selling claim because I did my own research and made a decision, with hindsight the wrong one and then went ahead and the companies agreed the business with no agents involved.

But in fact the way the system works is that (usually in cases like this) the mortgage lender or its subsidiary company is acting as an appointed sales agent of the insurance company.

So you may have thought you were doing all this yourself, but unless you signed a document saying the sale was "execution only" (which means you received no advice) then in fact you did receive advice and were sold the endowment by the insurance company through its appointed agent, the subsidiary of the lender.

So if you think you were missold, you can in fact complain (to AWD).:)

dunstonh

Yes

So if you think you were missold, you can in fact complain (to AWD).:)

May be pre 29th April 1988 and done through an IFA. Plus, it would be a fraudulent and opportunistic complaint. Execution only rules didnt come in until 1st Dec 2001 although LAUTRO had rules in July 88 and any complaint would deal with the rules in place at the time (if any).

Tolkny

No

All that is as maybe BUT I made my own decisions and am sure that the Insurance Seller was a direct employee of Standard Life and the Mortgage arranger a direct employee of Abbey National who did what I asked them because I foolishly believed having considered the info available that an endowment mortgage was the best way of funding my house purchase.

Yes there was other names in more recent years on some statements and I could never understand why and only enquired when I discovered they were to be given details of the upcoming maturity unless I objected, which I did and then began this thread.

Were I to claim miss selling I would be a corrupt gold digger and so I will accept the outcome as my responsibility

dunstonh

Yes

All that is as maybe BUT I made my own decisions

You made your own decisions which is known as execution only but you still used an agent to place the business.

Trying to think of a similar thing to compare it against...

How about you want to buy a tin of baked beans. You made that choice but you didnt buy it from Heinz directly but went to Tesco to buy it.

You get the beans, you made the choice but Tesco did the transaction (and if Tesco got renewal commission on beans, they would have got that for 25 years too )

EdInvestor

Just to confuse you even more, it's quite possible that if one of the policies was sold before 1988, the original Abbey subsidiary firm was indeed acting independently at the time (and continuing to get trail commission) - as the policy shows.

But that if the same company sold you another similar policy after 1988, then it was acting as a tied agent for Standard Life.If that happened, the later policies would not show any additional firm was involved (and no trail commission would be being paid).