Endowment compensation - Who gets the most results

happyhero

Hi

I'm sure someone will tell me off and say this has been asked before but I have been ploughing through loads on this site and I cannot find anything.

I took out an endowment in 1986 and tried to get compensation about 2 to 3 years ago I think it was, so I am a little rusty on what went on but still have all the paperwork to refer to.

Basically I think I could not use the FSA because it was a pre-1988 endowment and the FSA told me to first go direct to the seller of the endowment (Woolwich) which I did and although I laid down all the reasons, they fobbed me off with we do not believe you have a case, which was what I had half expected.

I appealed to the Ombudsman who took ages over it and said something similar.

So I approached one of these NO WIN NO FEE third party companies, and they just seem to go on for ever. I have chased it up but get obvious answers like it all takes time.

I have just now, in the last few weeks, received a RED letter warning me of a shortfall, so can anybody tell me who I could use that really get results or succeed in the most cases.

You can read loads about all the third party companies who sort it out for you and don't take a penny unless they win, but it was one of them I used, with no results a year later. They can preach as much as they like but if they don't get results what use are they to the likes of me.

Are there any results table for the successes and failures or does The Money Saving Expert reccommend anybody? At the moment my case seems doomed to failure. I cannot see why the fact there is a shortfall now, is not most of the proof needed to qualify me for compensation.

Any help appreciated.

defender_of_the_weak

Happyhero, I cannot understand why the third party even took your case on unless there is something untoward in the previous handling of your case.

You got fobbed off by Woolwich for a pre 88 sale, which is fairly standard and then had this decision reviewed by FOS who again, IMHO probably got it wrong, the key issue is how long ago did the FOS rule against you and was this appealed by the claim co.

The problem with some third party companies is either they are so small they will say yes to everyone or so big they employ call centre staff without sufficient knowledge to understand what they are doing.

If however your case has been returned to FOS for an Ombudsmans ruling this can easily take in excess of a year. Can you shed any further light on your case details

happyhero

Hi defender of the week, thanks for your reply. I was hopping someone on here would push me one way or the other so that I can do something, at least and know whether I ever have a hope or should give up.

I believe I had a fairly strong classic case, but was told it would be weakened by the fact it was taken out pre-88, that apparently means it comes under different rules and has less chance of succeeding, would you know if this is so, and does it make it a little futile proceeding any further or have I still got a worthwhile chance?

After I applied direct to the Woolwich thinking my case was fairly strong, then getting the "no go" (after a long wait) from the Ombudsmen, I was a little deflated, but I kept seeing these confidence boosting "We will fight your case and we have a large percentage of wins" ads, so I thought what the hell, no money to loose because they are "no win, no fee". I researched them and chose the best one (I thought), "COMPLAIN2US", but that is still ongoing with no progress that I can see.

To answer your question, the reason they probably took me on is possibly because I was a little devious. I had heard that once you'd approached the Ombudsman and failed you could not raise the same case again. But later on I was reading on forums that many people were ignoring this and moving on to these third party companies. So as there was a lot of money at stake, I decided to approach a company, but I only mentioned the fact that I had approached the Woolwich direct and failed. I didn't mention the fact I had failed with the Ombudsman, because I did not want to stop or put them off.

So that's where I am at now, but tonight I will go through my papers again and refresh my self on every thing that happened and dates, etc., and put some more info on here. Appologies if I seem a bit vague but over the last few years I have accumulated a lot of paperwork, so there is a lot to go through. I have put a lot of time into it and all for it to fail at every attempt. You do get a bit fed up with all this, but the RED letter has spured me on again to have one last look at the thing before I bury it.

Any help is truly appreciated.

Rikki

I had a endowment policy with the woolwich and I struck a deal with them. Keep on at them. Tell them why you believe you have been miss sold your endowment.
Why do you believe you were miss sold the policy?

defender_of_the_weak

Happyhero

Ultimately I fear you are doomed but sincerely hope I am wrong. Sooner or later your case will end up on the desk of an adjudicator and if a proper ruling has been provided before hen this will be referred to and that will be the end of it.

Woolwich cannot be tried for the same crime twice (sadly)

There is a slim chance that your previous complaint was rejected by a consumer consultant at FOS who wrote and told you they can not investigate cases sold by an IFA (which Woolwich was at the time) before 1988. If that was the case then maybe you have a chance but there are many other obstacles in the way. Shame you chose C2Us, I think they charge too much money IMHO

happyhero

Hi Rikki, it may seem a little pathetic asking this question but how can you ask again when you used all your ammo in the first try, and they turn you down flat? I am at a little bit of a loss what tattic to try next that will make them re-avaluate my case and not just say he's asking the same thing again and we already told him no. Have you any guidance from your experiences you could offer.

The reason I believe i was miss-sold my policy is the same old reason a lot of people have.

Basically at the time, I was pushed to take out an endowment due to the advantage, I would end up with a lump sum. What was wrong about their offer was that it gave 3 different possible interest rates which all ended up with me gaining a lump sum at the end and paying my mortgage off.

I regard this as miss-leading because this illustration only served to persaude the customer that they could do...... ...well, quite well or really well. There should have been an illustration showing what would happen if it did not maintain these hyperthetical rates. It was just lovely to do the usual of putting in some small print somewhere saying that present performance is no gaurantee of future performance but you are going to ignore the negative side of it when you have a professional saying that is extremely unlikey to happen and then showing you wonderfull illustrations to back up what he's saying.

dunstonh

There should have been an illustration showing what would happen if it did not maintain these hyperthetical rates

There was. The illustrations showed three projection rates and the lower rate nearly always showed a shortfall. At least in the later years anyway. Earlier ones may not have showed a shortfall because of the rates used. Yours would fit in with that timescale.

EdInvestor

The illustrations showed three projection rates...

The hopeless thing about all these proection rates is that they always show positive growth eg the currrent ones

+4%
+6%
+8%

whereas many people's experience in recent years has been the likes of:
0%
-2%
-8%
-10%

.....when will projections get real?

Or would it be impossible to sell the products with realistic projections?

dunstonh

EdInvestor wrote:

The hopeless thing about all these proection rates is that they always show positive growth eg the currrent ones

+4%
+6%
+8%

whereas many people's experience in recent years has been the likes of:
0%
-2%
-8%
-10%

.....when will projections get real?

Or would it be impossible to sell the products with realistic projections?

Most endowments, post lautro, would have been set up with target growth rates around 6-7.5% pa. Therefore 4,6 & 8% would have had at least one projection showing a value lower than the target growth rate.

As for real projections? its not going to happen. No-one knows what growth is going to happen in the future so what should they use? Back in the days of boom/bust they used rates that were appropriate for that era but totally useless for the current economic cycle. Now with lower inflation, lower projection rates are used. Indeed, the more desirable situation is now in place where projections are lower than what is being achieved by the majority of investment funds.

Over the long term, 4,6 & 8% is a realistic projection. Referring to fund performance in the short term following a stockmarket crash is unrealistic, just as your rates are.

Take a typical balanced managed fund (rightly or wrongly, these were heavily used in life funds in the past). 5 years out of the last 20 have had negative returns.

Last 12 months average around 17%
Last 3 years average 8,5%
Last 5 years average 0%
Last 10 years average 5.5%
Last 15 years average 7%
Last 20 years average 7.5%

So, on that basis, 4,6 & 8% would be reasonable projection rates.

happyhero

Hi dunstonh, I hear what you say about a fair projection, but when you are trying to fight your case you look for the weakness in the oposition's case, but excepting this don't you think there is a point to made. It is like the possability of doing badly is masked to the point where most people miss it completely ( I would almost call this deception), whereas the chance of doing well is shown with varying degrees.

I know I may be waffling on here but I think this is a valid argument when fighting a claim.

Anyway, no one has answered my original question yet, does anybody have any knowledge of any companies that have been consistantly successful with endowment cases, because from what I see most just get lost in the vast collection of cases that are ongoing.