Urgent advice please

Pobby

Well at the mo it`s going through the FOS.

melonhead

I've now had the reply to my initial refusal. They have given me the same reply as Pobby. They believe they have provided sufficient information regarding the inaccuracy in the MVA rate (i.e. "we have made a mistake", that doesn't seem very detailed to me). I am also being referred to Senior Management so they can decide what to do next. They also have "very strict procedures in place to achieve good customer service" "although on this ocassion... these have not been adhered to". I've complained to the FOS and am waiting for their view.

Any updates from Pobby?

Financial_Novice_2

There was a case highlighted recently on BBC2's working lunch the jist of which was - A web designed billed his client for the contracted fee however the client only sent a cheque for half the fee and added that as far a she was concerned this was in respect of full and final settlement. The web designer decided to cash the cheque and pursue the client for the rest later. Turns out that by cashing the cheque he was accepting the value as the full and final settlement. Legally he now has no claim to pursue the client for the other 50%. Not exactly the same as your situation I know however the key point is the settlement wording. I think this applies to your situation.

Pobby

Hi again.No update.All is very quiet.Nothing heard from them since my last post.

My guess is that there are thousands of folk out there in the same position.

It is a bit of a moral dilemma.However,as I understand,the fund I was invested in is a zombie fund and very cash heavy.The projection,should I have continued paying into was rubbish and my feelings at the moment are stuff them.

EdInvestor

Pobby wrote: »

The projection,should I have continued paying into was rubbish and my feelings at the moment are stuff them.

Projections are set by the regulator not the insurers themselves, and are based on growth @ 4%,6%,8% ( Of course they never show you a projection based on no growth, or a fall.......:rolleyes: )

There is a bit of scope for the companies to adjust them depending on the makeup of their WP funds, but not much - the lowest I have seen (from a zombie) is 3.5%, 5%,6.5%.

Pobby

Just a quick update.Received a letter today from the life company threatening to pass ``the debt`` to their``specialist`` debt recovery unit.This looks like the end of the road for now so I will see if the FOS have much to say on the matter.

poet123

Another empty threat.....it is not a debt it is an overpayment there is a massive difference in law.

Pobby

Yes and I am pretty miffed at the fact they are implying that i am a debtor.

Checked out this link.In the letter they sent to me they sited this case.

http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/more_on_scottish.htm

poet123

Obviously they will only link to cases which support their contention,there may well be case law on other similar issues which have gone the other way.

In any event the sums involved are much larger in the case above,so let them sue you and let a court decide. In fact that is what I would write and say to them,that if a court decides that they are within their rights to reclaim from you you will be willing to pay,then and only then. They are citing case law,let them put their money where their mouth is!!!! keep a copy of your offer to pay.

arealbasketcase

I am only a first year law student but I have had an idea,

Misrepresentation Act 1967
have a shufty at this link:

http://www.kevinboone.com/lawglos_MisrepresentationAct1967.html

and here is a quote from one of my text books

Negligent misstatement (or misrepresenation) emerged as a type of misrepresention following Heldey Byrne v Heller [1964]. Liability, based on the tort of negligence, depends on proof that there was a "special relationship" between the maker of the statement and the person who relied on it, sufficient to give rise to a duty of care in tort. Generally, the fact that the maker and recipient of the statement are parties to a contract will be sufficient to constitute the "special relationship".

I have to repeat I am a first year law student and know next to nothing, and am probably dangerously misinformed, but if you think about it they do have a duty of care, they made a negligent misrepresentation to you, if they can sue you for recovery it might just be that you could counter sue for misrepresentation??????

In your shoes I would be finding a good contract lawyer.

Best of luck, just out of curiosity have Scottish Life sent out this letter to anyone else other than the two of you? If they have there might be people already fighting the battle who have done the leg work for you.