Did your Advisor tell you Endowments are risky?

Crazy_Saver

Retired_I.F.A. wrote: »

acksunts n beer, nah yowm talkin abahrt me tu fhavrit subjeks me wench.

Noddy used t drink in a pub dahn thee rood frum me guz by the naim of the trumpit althoo its propa nahm is summart else. Twoz n still is a Jazz pub. Ozzy ud drink enyfin eny weeha e dow no wheea he's at nah let aloon when he wes yunga.

Tha spekooled en ay a bad pint ov ad me a few of um, bu rit's a bit flat Yow cor beet a gud yed on a bevy n a plart uf fagguts n pays it's bostin.

? ? ! ! ? ? ! !

Yeah looking at what I've just wrote you would struggle talking to me unless you did a bit of shakespeare in them west end theatres as the black country accent is the nearest to how shakey talked in his day.

Sorry - Musicals, Films and rock and pop concerts were more my thing.

The only Shakey I worked with was Shakin' Stevens:rotfl:

DebRos

Hi Crazy Saver

How did you manage to access correspondence between the FOS and company you were complaining about?

Good luck with your case

Cheers

Crazy_Saver

DebRos wrote: »

Hi Crazy Saver

How did you manage to access correspondence between the FOS and company you were complaining about?

Good luck with your case

Cheers

I asked for them when I realised that the FOS were sending copies of our correspondence to the firm.

I queried this and here is quote from an e-mail from the FOS

Yes, it is common practice to send copies of submissions to the other party to the complaint, under the rules of natural justice

I must admit it wasn't easy. I didn't find out that they were sending the copies until after we had made our final submission and the case had been refused by the adjudicator.

When I asked for the copies, all they sent me were copies of all the correspondence between them and us.
.
It took a lot of e-mails to finally get everything but it was worth it just to see what the firm had written about us. So many lies and fabrications. After receiving the file, we put in a second final submission letter challenging all the lies etc.

We still may not win our case but it has made me realise how dis-honest some people can be.:shocked:

treliac

Crazy_Saver wrote: »

Hi treliac.

Our first letter of complaint to the FOS is dated 11th October 2006.

First adjudicator’s report stating complaint not upheld received 12th April 2007.

Obviously we challenged this and received a second report with the same conclusion on 25th April 2007.

We asked for the case to be referred to an ombudsman and received notification of this on 3rd May 2007.

We finally received copies of all correspondence between the FOS and the firm in question on 18th June 2007.

The correspondence was quite an eye opener and we therefore submitted a second final submission letter on 16th August 2007.

Received a letter on 13th November 2007 saying our case is still waiting to be reviewed in preparation for consideration by an ombudsman.

16 months and waiting!:huh:

That's not including the 2 months spent corresponding with the firm direct before turning to the FOS for help.

Hope this is helpful to you.

Regards

Crazy Saver

Thanks Crazy Saver, you've given me some idea of what I might expect. I think that, if enough people feel let down by FOS decision making, it may be worth trying to get an organised challenge together. You and I don't know how our complaints are going to end up but I expect we will keep in touch via this site and in the future, who knows!

All the best

treliac

treliac

Retired_I.F.A. wrote: »

If either of you or both download msn messenger(free) and plug in a cheap microphone(£3-£4) pm me and i'll give you my email address I can then talk you through it. Messenger is clearer than the phone, free and great if you have relatives/ friends abroad.

As I said in the other thread I sold loads of pension linked mortgages far more than I ever sold endowment ones. Possibly I sold the very first pension linked mortgage to myself in '81 extending my term to 36 years. They took time to explain and understand and there is a risk which likewise had to be understood and if accepted they were and still are the ultimate repayment method. I said i'd try and summarise it but I dont believe I can without typing loads and loads. Talking is so much quicker and what if questions can be answered instantly.



I dont believe you are gullible you just never understood what you signed up for. I'm just a guy who learned his trade like any other. I left school with cse maths, I'm no genius, I just learned how to explain what most people found difficult to comprehend because they were never taught "real world maths" ie about money"

Thanks for offering so much of your time on this. I suppose there's not so much point in filling in the gaps in understanding now, more than I've done so far, as we are already in dispute over the whole thing.

If you sold so many, do you know whether the buyers were satisfied with their purchases and did your own achieve what you bought it for, without costing you a huge amount of money (paying interest on your mortgage loan for a whole 36 yrs). Is it what you were able to retire on?
Sorry a lot of questions !!

treliac

Crazy_Saver wrote: »

Yes, it is common practice to send copies of submissions to the other party to the complaint, under the rules of natural justice
.

So, by this they mean it's a one way street, your submissions to the financial company but not theirs back !!

More evidence of their impartiality. I AM getting worried now.

Crazy_Saver

Originally Posted by Crazy Saver
Yes, it is common practice to send copies of submissions to the other party to the complaint, under the rules of natural justice

treliac wrote: »

So, by this they mean it's a one way street, your submissions to the financial company but not theirs back !!

More evidence of their impartiality. I AM getting worried now.

Hi treliac.

Exactly my argument with them at the time. I e-mailed the FOS straight back stating that surely "the rules of natural justice" must apply to the complainant as well. It did take a lot of e-mails but eventually they did send me all the relevent documentation, albeit after they had made their decision!

But of course they don't agree with me that their system seems a "tad" biased:rolleyes: