Bank withdrawing services

ResearchGuru

Interesting.  Well I know which side you are on (Barclays and Monument Insurance) which is why you have given zero advice on registering with the FOS (to the other people in this chat) and have continuously just said 'it's obvious' 'yes they can' (say one thing and do another).  Anyway, I'm not asking you for advice, I'm reaching out to the other customers/victims to compare notes. I could give you an example of misselling, though (just for a laugh) although I'm sure you will side with Barclays/Monument.  How about one month before, accepting an updated customer profile (almost doubling the monthly payment) and taking the first month's, knowing that you'd already decided to cancel/withdraw (call it whatever you like) the policy a month later?  Negotiations would have been pretty much completed.  Anyway, as I know you just want everyone to give up, and have a one sided position of 'Don't bother, they can do what they want', no need to reply.

dunstonh

Well I know which side you are on (Barclays and Monument Insurance) which is why you have given zero advice on registering with the FOS (to the other people in this chat) and have continuously just said 'it's obvious' 'yes they can' (say one thing and do another).  

Its not a case of taking sides.  it is a case of being objective and being aware of what is and is not allowed.  The bottom line is that they are allowed to withdraw the product.  

 I could give you an example of misselling, though (just for a laugh) although I'm sure you will side with Barclays/Monument. 

You cannot give an example of misselling about this particular event though as it would never have crossed anyone's mind at the point of sale.   However, if you do have an example of a sale from around 2007 that covers this even then by all means let us know.

 How about one month before, accepting an updated customer profile (almost doubling the monthly payment) and taking the first month's, knowing that you'd already decided to cancel/withdraw (call it whatever you like) the policy a month later?

That is not missale.   Missale relates to point of sale.  Not events that occur years or even decades later.

However, that scenario is very plausible and similar happens across the board in many retail markets, not just financial.   The staff are told to a job and keep doing it until they are told not to.  There are several reasons you get quick decisions like this.   a) notifications to the stockmarket being required  b) trying to find alternatives until the point you realise there are none. c) regulatory requirements.

 Negotiations would have been pretty much completed. 

Your assumption is not necessarily correct.  They would have a number of options on the table and they often go right up to the deadline.    

  Anyway, as I know you just want everyone to give up, and have a one sided position of 'Don't bother, they can do what they want', no need to reply.

So, in other words, you want to give people false hope and don't want sensible discussion and comments on reality.  Nice try with that but it will be a bit like your complaint. It will fail.

DullGreyGuy

You had a policy underwritten by Barclay's Insurance DAC before the transaction happened... after the transaction happened you had a policy underwritten by Barclay's Insurance DAC. What happened was that Monument Re became the shareholder of the company. I'd assume in time they'd change its name but that doesn't change who the legal entity is (any more than someone getting married and changing their name changes who they are)

Legally therefore nothing changed on your policy and your insurance company remained the same legal entity. As such the transfer will have been considered by the regulators in a very different way than if the policies themselves had transferred from Barclays Ins DAC to Monument Re, that would have required court approval via a Part VII process inc notification to all impacted customers.

Insurance companies are not required to inform their policyholders of any changes in shareholders. I'd suggest that you'd also struggle to convince a court that change of shareholder is a case of miss-selling too.

When you are dealing with regulators or ombudsman you predominately have to know what the law states, ultimately that is set by politicians under the advice of regulators (or against it) and their role is then to enforce it. I could opine on if the law should change such that if a change in shareholder with more than 25% capital should be declared to customers or not but its not going to help you or influence the outcome from the FOS and so better for threads on debate than dealing with a real world issue.

One of the reasons why PPI is so much cheaper than PHI is exactly because the insurer can cancel/not renew it. PHI is a form of long term insurance and so can only be cancelled by the insurer for non-payment or fraud

ResearchGuru

"How can it be missold? You state you bought it several years before the statement! Love to see how you claim you only bought it because of a statement that was going to be made 7 years in the future!!"

I will state 'the obvious'  (a term you like to use) in that my decision to CONTINUE paying for the policy for the past 7 additional years was based upon their public statements (and annual financial reports) stating that they would honour existing policies.

What I am going to do is to search for legal case studies, precedents set, and take it from there.   I've been a researcher for over 25 years, so I will find them, and hand this over to the FOS for their consideration.

TrickyDicky101

Are you sure FOS has any jurisdiction or power over an Irish Life company?  Monument Insurance DAC would be regulated by the CBI in Ireland.

dunstonh

I will state 'the obvious'  (a term you like to use) in that my decision to CONTINUE paying for the policy for the past 7 additional years was based upon their public statements (and annual financial reports) stating that they would honour existing policies.

How is that a missale?  (again, missale relates to point of sale)

What I am going to do is to search for legal case studies, precedents set, and take it from there.   I've been a researcher for over 25 years, so I will find them, and hand this over to the FOS for their consideration.

If only you could put the same effort into something worthwhile.

DullGreyGuy

ResearchGuru said:

What I am going to do is to search for legal case studies, precedents set, and take it from there.   I've been a researcher for over 25 years, so I will find them, and hand this over to the FOS for their consideration.

The FOS is not a court of law and as such legal precedence doesnt apply to them, nor do their own decision create a precedence for themselves. 

In practice this typically makes the FOS more customer leaning as they can, if they want, go against the strict interpretation of the law that a court would take. There are numerous cases where they highlight this in relation to S75 claims where there is a dispute on if a middleman exists etc. You'd therefore be somewhat wasting your time in highlight any prior cases but it may help you in constructing a better complaint letter to the FOS