Urgent advice please

Aegis

poet123 wrote: »

final settlement n. an agreement reached by the parties to a lawsuit, usually in writing and/or read into the record in court, settling all issues. Usually there are elements of compromise, waiver of any right to re-open or appeal the matter even if there is information found later which would change matters (such as recurrence of a problem with an injury), mutual release of any further claim by each party, a statement that neither side is admitting fault, and some action or payment by one or both sides. In short, the case is over, provided the parties do what they are supposed to do according to the final settlement's terms. With the glut of cases crowding court calendars and overwhelming the system and delays in getting to trial (due to three factors: increased criminal case load, increased litigious nature of society, and an insufficient number of judges), judges encourage attempts to settle, including mandatory settlement conferences with judges or experienced settlement attorneys present. (See: set


See legal definition above,I have highjlighted the relevant wording.

From that wording the matter looks a lot less black and white to me!

Definitely seek legal consultation then!

EDIT: That's a definition for a lawsuit though, not a payment or a contract...

StevieJ

Pobby wrote: »

Last year,on the advice of people here and others I surrendered my Scottish Life with profits endowment plan.It was doing very badly and although I havn`t claimed,it would appear to have been mis sold.
I received a cheque for £28,883.58.
Today I have received a letter from them saying that i have been over paid.and that the MVA was miscalculated and I need to pay back £2,126.06!!!!!!!!!!!
Theres a bit of a guilt trip about about how it may affect other policy holders in the fund
So what to do.can they force me to pay this back.Their mistake.Frankly I am sick and tired of the whole endowment business and I really don`t feel inclined to rush to get my check book out.
What to do?

Why don't you tell them that you are going to raise a complaint for mis selling? this may push them into a compromise

poet123

Yes the definition is not being used in connection with a contract in the example above but the term( once accepted by both parties) is a legally binding component of a contract. That is why it is included (so that the insurance company are covered in the event they have underpaid you,if you cash the cheque you are deemed to have accepted the figure and have no redress). Similarly, the term "without prejudice" would entitle them to re open the matter at a later date.

Pobby

Cheers Ed.It wasn`t them.It was independent broker who promised the earth but that is another story.

martinman3

What makes me certain that they don't have a leg to stand on is that there is no transparency in the calculation of the surrender value.
i.e. You don't know exactly how it is calculated and either the amount they paid or the lower amount could be wrong.

If the MVA was shown on the original letter with the other values but was not applied correctly, because of a simple arithmetic error, I believe that you would have no case and would need to pay it back. But if the letter gives a total figure with no calculations or no obvious arithmetic errors you would have to assume that it is correct and make your decision based on that figure.

p.s. I would also consider sending details of this to [EMAIL="endowment@thisismoney.co.uk"]endowment@thisismoney.co.uk[/EMAIL] as they may investigate this on your behalf.

poet123

Even if the values had been shown,I dont think it would be as clear cut as you suggest. The insurance company could not rely on the mathematical ability of each policy holder to correct their calculation. It is their error,and they sent out the "full and final" settlement letter,they must bear the cost.

you can bet 99% of those who received letters will not be rushing for their cheque books either.

cloud_dog

I agree with MM3 on this one.

Doesn't this come down to what the recipient (OP) can reasonable understand or deduce to a high degree of confidence and be aware that they have been overpaid.

I think the evidence in this case (although I'm no expert) points to the fact that insurance company has messed up. The OP has written evidence of a surrender value for a similar amount to the amount received. It is not unreasonable for the OP to loko at the received amount and conclude that it is the correct amount.

The difference is 10%, the question is, is it reasonable for a layperson to recognise that the amount paid was incorrect? For a 10% overpayment, I do not beleive so. I think judges or ombudsmen in cases such as these look at what is reasonable and obvious. for example if the OP had been paid 10x the amount or maybe even twice then this should have been obvious and the OP would have had a duty to query this with the insurance company - as much as we might like to get away with twice the amount :T

cloud_dog

Pobby

Poor old Scottish Life.Another begging letter.That`s 2 in 5 days!Oh and by the way I quote``An amount of £28,883.68 was paid to ypu in full and final settlementof the policy benefits``.There they go again.

melonhead

I have also had this MVA overpayment letter fron Scottish Life. They want £700 back after paying £8500 in summer '07. I am taking the line of "full and final settlement" on which I based my decision to sell. I am waiting for their reply, I have no intention of paying at the moment.

martinman3

Now that we know more than one person affected by this one of you should definitely contact the Daily Mail via [EMAIL="endowment@thisismoney.co.uk"]endowment@thisismoney.co.uk[/EMAIL] or [EMAIL="editor@thisismoney.co.uk"]editor@thisismoney.co.uk[/EMAIL] [EMAIL="editor@thisismoney.co.uk and"]and[/EMAIL] hopefully they would be able to shame them into backing down.