Scottish Amicable Endowment - Payment Of Further Bonus

Thermoman

Quite probable - I'd have to rake through our literature to check that.

Photonic

Thermoman wrote: »

If the terminal bonus does include the further bonus then why the Pru couldn't have done a mailshot to all Scot Am policy holders to explain this is beyond me.

I'm pretty sure we've kept all the correspondence and I've not come across anything like this.

I agree with your second thoughts entirely.
Not only had the Prudential made no early attempt to inform policyholders of the intention to integrate the “final bonuses” £530m estate into the SAIF they have made no efforts to explain the position in retrospect of that decision. The failure to communicate the details is in the face of what can be assumed where many policyholders are questioning as to whereabouts of their third and final promised benefit that can’t be clearly identified within the Cash Sum payment at maturity.
An assumption that the Prudential is fully aware of the policyholders’ concern is borne from the fact that the replies offered to their queries are being given through prepared standard responses – word for word.
There is every reason, even at this late stage, that the many thousands of investors still awaiting maturity of their policies deserve being informed, in some detail, as to the distribution of the fund and thus attempt to dispel its mystery and the subsequent discontent we are witnessing.

thebull

Could someone in here maybe come up with a "template" letter that everyone could send in to the PRU demanding to know in detail what has and what is happining to this former Scot/Am "pot".
Just a thought .

bluefrew2

Thermoman wrote: »

Thanks for the link Froggit.

So it is apparent that Scot Am endowments have fared better - although they may have had a better starting point pre takeover I suppose.

We're still mulling over our response to the letters we have received.

If the terminal bonus does include the further bonus then why the Pru couldn't have done a mailshot to all Scot Am policy holders to explain this is beyond me.

I'm pretty sure we've kept all the correspondence and I've not come across anything like this.

The Pru don't have a right to send a mailshot because the administration of the total fund was set out in a contract between them and the 40,000 Scottish Am. policy holders and this contract was placed before the Scottish Courts. For a change in that contract they would have surely had to go before the courts to make that change. The Pru made no such application! Make no bones about it the Pru have broken their contract with 40,000+ policyholders and they are getting away with it.
I've got a complaint in with the FSA over this matter and they are dragging their heels on this. The answer is to go before the Small Claims Court and see if we can get the money we're due that way. The alternative is to get a pressure group formed and hire lawyers?

bluefrew2

Photonic wrote: »

I agree with your second thoughts entirely.
Not only had the Prudential made no early attempt to inform policyholders of the intention to integrate the “final bonuses” £530m estate into the SAIF they have made no efforts to explain the position in retrospect of that decision. The failure to communicate the details is in the face of what can be assumed where many policyholders are questioning as to whereabouts of their third and final promised benefit that can’t be clearly identified within the Cash Sum payment at maturity.
An assumption that the Prudential is fully aware of the policyholders’ concern is borne from the fact that the replies offered to their queries are being given through prepared standard responses – word for word.
There is every reason, even at this late stage, that the many thousands of investors still awaiting maturity of their policies deserve being informed, in some detail, as to the distribution of the fund and thus attempt to dispel its mystery and the subsequent discontent we are witnessing.

Even if poicy holders accepted the money offered by the Pru, it makes no difference such as "full & final settlement" if you make a complaint. The majority of policy holders need the money to pay off a mortgage but please-make complaint

Froggitt

FYI it will cost them about £500 for every complaint the FOS receive. Not sure if the fund foots this or the shareholders.

thebull

Bluefrew im with you lets see if we can form a pressure group.

Photonic

Prudential Bonus Tables: sample surrender vs maturity values as at 1 May 2010 and 1 May 2011

Contract__________________Policy_________Surrender______ Maturity
______________________in 2011 (2010)_____ Value 2010____ Value 2011

Prudential__________ 25 years (24 years)_____ £31,995_______ £35,837
Mortgage
Endowment
(25 year term)

Scottish Amicable___ 25 years (24 years)_____ £33,404_______ £38,156
Mortgage
Endowment
(25 year term)


As drawn to our attention by Froggit the above figures indicate the Scot Am Endowment Maturity Value to be a 6.5% better return than the Prudential.

I have recalculated the Final Cash Sum payment for my recently matured policy:

When removing the “Special Bonus” that had been included in the total ‘existing declared bonus’ at the start of 1997 and then its subsequent effect of increasing the ‘new declared bonuses’ I find the policy has benefited by 5%.
This result was made using the same Final Terminal Bonus Rate in each case.
If, and I repeat if, the “Final Bonuses” have been included in the Final Terminal Bonus Rate then the final % benefit would be even higher!

Perhaps an answer to the subsequent better performance?

Froggitt

Dunno why Pru have tried to hide there the money went.

sheslookinhot

I have a Scot Amicable endowment (Home Purchaser, I think it's called) due to mature in Jan 2015. I have always resisted the temptation to surrender it. It's no longer needed to pay a mortgage but I reckon its a good savings method.