Endowment Shortfall compensation

dunstonh

Supposedly I am not time barred as it only matures this week.

Most endowments started the timebar clock between 2001-2004 and were barred by 2007.   The criteria for barring was three years from the first occasion that the mid rate projection showed a shortfall.  Those were mostly after 2001.

No they didnt read anything,  they just wanted me to sign up and promised me i couldnt do it only them and their 42% fee.

based on what you have said, they are not following FCA guidelines as they are required to tell you that you can do it yourself.   And they are not being truthful as other CMCs still do endowments.  Certainly not as many as there used to be as the Endowment issue is largely over now (thanks to not many left and the timebars).   

They are also meant to investigate whether they think you were missold before they make the complaint.

Is that 42% including the 20% Vat? 

tazo101

dunstonh said:

Supposedly I am not time barred as it only matures this week.

Most endowments started the timebar clock between 2001-2004 and were barred by 2007.   The criteria for barring was three years from the first occasion that the mid rate projection showed a shortfall.  Those were mostly after 2001.

No they didnt read anything,  they just wanted me to sign up and promised me i couldnt do it only them and their 42% fee.

based on what you have said, they are not following FCA guidelines as they are required to tell you that you can do it yourself.   And they are not being truthful as other CMCs still do endowments.  Certainly not as many as there used to be as the Endowment issue is largely over now (thanks to not many left and the timebars).   

They are also meant to investigate whether they think you were missold before they make the complaint.

Is that 42% including the 20% Vat? 

They did say I could do myself, but "if i screw up, i only get one chance" 
The way i look at it if they manage to get me something its more than i get by doing nothing?
Yes thats including Vat.

tazo101

Deleted_User said:

They're trying to sign up the simple and feeble-minded to hand over some fees for insurance and letter-posting services.

It's up to you if you put your name down on the list.

Such a stupid reply, but glad i wasted some off your time.

[Deleted User]

It's not a waste of my time if I kept you off the list.  Unless you want to be on the list, in which case I apologise.

tazo101

Deleted_User said:

It's not a waste of my time if I kept you off the list.  Unless you want to be on the list, in which case I apologise.

Fair enough maybe i read it wrong :-)

dunstonh

They did say I could do myself, but "if i screw up, i only get one chance"

Yet the FOS have said that CMCs have a lower success rate than personal complaints.   You really cannot screw up a complaint.     You stand more chance of success with a personal complaint than you do with a claims company sending in a template letter (which can harm you success rate as they use reasons that may not apply and if it shown you are telling lies, you lose credibility on areas which are grey and need a balance of probability decision).  Some CMCs only send your name and address on a spreadsheet and ask the firm to investigate the sale.  Nothing more than that.

McKneff

Dont forget, every penny of their fees there is always 20% Vat to add

Mickey666

I didn’t even complain and got compensation but that was back in the early 90s.  No ambulance chasers involved either.

dunstonh

Mickey666 said:

I didn’t even complain and got compensation but that was back in the early 90s.  No ambulance chasers involved either.

Getting it in the early 90s is impressive.  Endowments didn't start falling short until just after 2000. 

Mickey666

dunstonh said:

Mickey666 said:

I didn’t even complain and got compensation but that was back in the early 90s.  No ambulance chasers involved either.

Getting it in the early 90s is impressive.  Endowments didn't start falling short until just after 2000. 

Oops, quite right.  I just checked my files and it was early 2000's.  It was an endowment policy with Guardian Financial Services for a Woolwich mortgage.  The plan we signed up for included a x% (can't remember the number) increase in endowment policy payments each year, which we had been paying.  Then one year we received a letter saying the policy was not on track to pay off the mortgage and that we therefore had to increase our endowment payments to something about double the current repayments.  I replied that we have a signed contract stating that we agreed to pay £x per month, rising by x% each year (whatever the details were) and that in return you agreed the policy would 'at least meet the mortgage repayment'.  That last bit was key because that was their 'glossy brochure' statement!  Good job I had kept a copy.  I then wrote something along the lines that 'therefore, we'll keep to our part of the contract and you'll keep to yours and fully repay our mortgage' - a bit tongue-in-cheek really just to get their attention.  Which it did!

Long story short, they eventually converted the endowment mortgage to a repayment mortgage, paying all the set-up fees required, in order to put us in the same position as if we'd taken it out on day one.  I can't remember the details of the compensation payments but it amounted to around £32k.  I wondered if I could have somehow forced them to stick with the contract, especially the bit about the policy would 'at least' cover the mortgage amount, which in hindsight was clearly a big mistake on their part, but I had it in writing on their promo literature.  But life's too short for some battles and a 'bird in the hand' . . . . . as they say.

The funny thing was that despite their 'guarantee', I had never intended to rely on the endowment to repay the mortgage.  My intention was always to pay it down myself anyway, which I had already been doing, and I was regarding the eventual policy payout as a nice bonus.  The £32k payment certainly helped with paying off the whole mortgage by 2006