Endowment waiver of contributions

Mi55red

Don't know where he got 50p a month from. My number is from my annual statements. If it was only £150 probably wouldn't bother. But still, already covered and could/can prove it, so not appropriate to add it in any circumstance. This was through my bank, who very soon afterwards was my x-bank due to this 'option' not being an option.

Mi55red

What makes you think I have done nothing before. Banks are masters at passing complaints around and doing nothing and not explaining. Hence the need for MSE. Doesn't change the facts. Not needed not wanted, added anyway.

dunstonh

Doesn't change the facts. Not needed not wanted, added anyway.

Doesnt change the fact that you have failed to state what evidence you have to support your allegation.

so not appropriate to add it in any circumstance.

Rubbish.

WOP was considered best advice to have it. Technically, it still is today but it is no longer widely offered due to a change in the set up of modern day products (insurers not offering them but platforms).

Nobody is better off long term ill. Employment sick pay may cover x monthhs but income protection, if you had it, would be limited. It is one of the easiest bolt ons to justify when talking about mortgage repayment or pension provision.

What makes you think I have done nothing before.

Well if you have, then you cant do anything about it now.

muhandis

Exactly, that's the crucial point. No harm or cost involved in making a formal complaint, it'll hardly take a few minutes to do online.

Also, from the Money Advice Service page on financial mis-selling, the notion that you need to provide solid "evidence" to support a complaint about mis-selling is a myth.

"You don’t have to find concrete proof, but you do need to explain your problem."

Mi55red wrote: »

What makes you think I have done nothing before. Banks are masters at passing complaints around and doing nothing and not explaining. Hence the need for MSE. Doesn't change the facts. Not needed not wanted, added anyway.

dunstonh

Also, from the Money Advice Service page on financial mis-selling, the notion that you need to provide solid "evidence" to support a complaint about mis-selling is a myth.

Correct. There is no requirement for evidence to be provided to raise a complaint. However, this is an allegation of something said 25 years ago. It's not a failure of suitability that can be assessed without evidence.



So, the complaint would be assessed on the basis of the available documentation and information they hold on file or the customer supplies. There won't be anything to support that allegation. So, they can easily reject that point.
It will then fall back for a check on suitability and WOP is suitable for the objective and the OP will have a financial need for it. So, its a very easy rejection for them to make should they choose to do so.

Only if there is another failing or they auto-payout will this be expected to succeed. The OP says they have already tried before (and failed). So, the bank can just refer back to their previous complaint response. That said, banks are very strange on complaints. They often argue cases where there was a clear wrongdoing but pay out when there isn't anything wrong.

muhandis

Thanks for qualifying your statement demanding "evidence" from the OP. There are multiple assumptions in your post which might or might not turn out to be correct.

But again, nothing to stop the OP from complaining again and definitely not the lack of "concrete evidence". A few minutes to do it online, zero cost.

We don't know how long ago it was that the OP complained (if he did so formally). As you are no doubt aware, the regulatory environment and how banks and advisers treat complaints now is radically different from the past.

dunstonh wrote: »

Correct. There is no requirement for evidence to be provided to raise a complaint. However, this is an allegation of something said 25 years ago. It's not a failure of suitability that can be assessed without evidence.

So, the complaint would be assessed on the basis of the available documentation and information they hold on file or the customer supplies. There won't be anything to support that allegation.

It will then fall back for a check on suitability and WOP is suitable for the objective and the OP will have a financial need for it. So, its a very easy rejection for them to make should they choose to do so.

Only if there is another failing or they auto-payout will this be expected to succeed. The OP says they have already tried before (and failed). So, the bank can just refer back to their previous complaint response.

Nasqueron

muhandis wrote: »

Exactly, that's the crucial point. No harm or cost involved in making a formal complaint, it'll hardly take a few minutes to do online.

Also, from the Money Advice Service page on financial mis-selling, the notion that you need to provide solid "evidence" to support a complaint about mis-selling is a myth.

"You don’t have to find concrete proof, but you do need to explain your problem."

No-one said it was a myth, but nobody would be dumb enough to believe the bank or indeed, the FOS, would accept the word of mouth of someone, talking about an event 25 years ago, as proof in the face of evidence to the contrary. Arguing you don't need to provide evidence is akin to me saying you owe me £100 and expecting you to pay it when you could, for example, show a bank statement for the month proving nothing was withdrawn/transferred at that time.

muhandis

All I've done is quote directly from the MAS web-page guiding customers who suspect they're victims of financial mis-selling, like the OP is. If you interpret it differently, that's fair enough.

I have no reason to disbelieve the OP's claim that the adviser incorrectly told him that an option (at extra cost) was mandatory for him.

If banks and the FOS only ruled on "concrete evidence" as you see it, no one would ever be recompensed for face to face or over the phone mis-selling. It's not a court of law.

Let's politely agree to disagree. You think there is no point complaining in this scenario, I think the OP should go ahead and formally complain to Lloyds online, at zero cost and taking but a few minutes of their time.

Nasqueron wrote: »

No-one said it was a myth, but nobody would be dumb enough to believe the bank or indeed, the FOS, would accept the word of mouth of someone, talking about an event 25 years ago, as proof in the face of evidence to the contrary. Arguing you don't need to provide evidence is akin to me saying you owe me £100 and expecting you to pay it when you could, for example, show a bank statement for the month proving nothing was withdrawn/transferred at that time.