Misold endowment policy

stewartfromlondon

Can someone please tell me if the time limit on claiming for misold endowment policy has passed. I purchased an endowment policy ( norwich union ) in 1990 which had a shortfall. It was being investigated by a claims company but they claim the mortgage lender ( leeds permanent b.s. Now halifax ) have destroyed my mortgage application paperwork because it is more than 7 years ago. Where do i stand on this please ?

csgohan4

Please elaborate on why you think you were mis sold, I assume the claims company you have had to pay up front?

SonOf

Can someone please tell me if the time limit on claiming for misold endowment policy has passed.

You need to complain within 3 years of reasonably being aware of an issue. In endowment terms, that means within 3 years of the first shortfall statement using the mid rate projection or 3 years of maturity, whichever is earlier.

Most endowments started issuing projection shortfalls at mid rate around 2003. By 2009, most endowments (around three quarters of them) were timebarred.

It was being investigated by a claims company but they claim the mortgage lender ( leeds permanent b.s. Now halifax ) have destroyed my mortgage application paperwork because it is more than 7 years ago.

That is probably correct and incorrect at the same time.

The FCA's general rule of thumb is to destroy documentations 6 years after it is no longer required. So, destruction is a possible outcome.

However, endowment sales were regulated by 1990 and would not appear on any of the mortgage application paperwork. It would have its own file.

The endowment issue was largely considered dead and finished around a decade ago. A few stragglers still go on but with most endowments timebarred, you would now need to be very lucky to succeed. Also, endowments were not as big an issue as PPI. The uphold rate on endowment complaints was actually quite low with many distribution channels.

stewartfromlondon

Thanks for the info. My endowment did mature 4 years ago but i was lucky enough to have paid off the mortgage anyway in 2007 so just received a reduced lump sum than estimated upon maturity. Just thought it a bit odd that a claims company took it on ( knowing the full timescale of events ) with a no win no fee basis but it seemed to fall down on the lack of paperwork subject which you confirm companies normally keep records for 6 years then destroy them ( conveniently in my case i thought ). As you say i am probably time barred anyway but again, thanks for the info.

[Deleted User]

stewartfromlondon wrote: »

Just thought it a bit odd that a claims company took it on ( knowing the full timescale of events ) with a no win no fee basis

They took it on purely to get your details. You're now known as an easy mark for claims companies to target, so be careful about responding to future offers of big payouts.

stewartfromlondon

I engaged a claims company on a "no win no fee basis" to investigate only for it to fall down on the lack of paperwork reason, not timescale. I'm not sure why the claims company took it on in the first place knowing the full timescale of events.The only reason i thought it may have been misold was that it massively under achieved its prediction. It only would have paid off 60% of the original loan on maturity but i had made other arrangements to make up the shortfall anyway so the original loan has been paid up in full. Not having experience in the financial world, i realise from the advice from this forum that i would be time barred anyway, but thanks for your consideration.

SonOf

Just thought it a bit odd that a claims company took it on ( knowing the full timescale of events ) with a no win no fee basis but it seemed to fall down on the lack of paperwork subject which you confirm companies normally keep records for 6 years then destroy them ( conveniently in my case i thought ).

Claims companies take on all sorts of stuff in the hope of getting information that may pay off. Some are desperate for money now that the PPI gravy train has ended.

The FCA took over regulation of CMCs in April this year and the first fines have just been dished out. The FOS complaint stats against CMCs is higher than the average FOS uphold rate. It is somewhat ironic that the CMCs are now subject to the same standards as the regulated firms and banks that they have been going against for years.

i realise from the advice from this forum that i would be time barred anyway, but thanks for your consideration.

Based on your later information, the building society could activate the following timebars:
1 - its more than than 6 years from commencement and 3 years from maturity (maturity being a trigger to start the three year clock that you knew it fell short).
2 - you ceased to use the endowment in 2007 for mortgage purposes (so you knew there was an issue back then - 3 year trigger starts).

It is remotely possible that the timebar may not be triggered by the building society. However, with the documentation gone, it is more likely that they would use that argument in their response.

kingstreet

Who advised on the sale of the endowment product? The lender or a third party such as a broker or estate agent?

It is the seller responsible for the advice, not necessarily the lender.