complaint upheld, so why am I not happy?

dunstonh

I think the compensation thing is likely to be tested. The ruling before said that past demutualization benefits paid cannot be taken into account. There was nothing on future demutulization benefits. I believe there is an IFA taking a stance on this (with regards to Standard Life). Don't know how far he is willing to take it or who will bottle out first.


Its interesting as the situation isnt fair on advisors who have to pay the compensation without the extra demutualization benefit being taken into account. However, that makes equally unfair on policyholders of those insurance companies who gave enhanced benefits into the policy rather than shares or payout which enhanced the value of the policy and therefore surrender value.

EdInvestor

Seems to me the principle is pretty clear:

This judgment makes clear that:
any benefits received from a
demutualisation were not received as
a result of the firm’s negligence; (in the
Taber case, benefits were taken in the form
of shares, but referred to in the judgment
as potentially being taken in the form of
cash or additional bonuses);

and therefore

the value of the benefits received does not
need to be taken into account to reduce
the amount of any compensation payable
to a policyholder.

dunstonh

The important wording is "received". The case that is going forward relates to future payouts following an upheld complaint.

Personally, i think its a long shot but I can totally understand the fustration of the IFA that is pursuing this action.

Katykat

Oh wow, some good news for a change, a windfall!!. I havn't had any notification as yet, where can I find out more?

EdInvestor

Katykat wrote:

Oh wow, some good news for a change, a windfall!!. I havn't had any notification as yet, where can I find out more?

It's only just been announced that they plan to do this, so payment will be some way off, probably the year after next.You will have to vote on it, just like a demutualisation, so no doubt they'll be in touch in due course.

whiteflag_3

EdInvestor wrote:

Seems to me the principle is pretty clear:

Ed you can post all the high court judgements you like, I still think the whole compensation issue is crass.

Dunstonh -the IFA is John Joseph , a well known and repected IFA who is about to be shut down. For anyone whos interested, he is not refusing to pay a claim that he has proved was not missold, he is asking for a share of the SL demut benefits. HIs logic is that if he sold such a bad investment why is the client keeping the policy?

dunstonh

Thanks whiteflag. He should be at least allowed to have his day in court without the FSA shutting him down first.

Katykat

thanks Ed, our policy has 4 years to run yet, so hope we get something out of it. Cheers, have a good day!!!!

defender_of_the_weak

The problem is with the rules regarding these cases. I fully sympathise with John Joseph and the stance he is taking. If the FSA/FOS cannot put together a decent set of rules with all the millions they spend each year that is hardly the fault of the consumer or the IFA

Most cases are settled using a quasi legal fudge but the rules are rarely if ever tested in law to provide a proper precedent which people could work to

dunstonh

Most cases are settled using a quasi legal fudge but the rules are rarely if ever tested in law to provide a proper precedent which people could work to

The least the FSA should do is to allow John Joseph to pursue this through the courts and then when the outcome is decided, then take action if he fails to follow the judgement. Trying to shut him down before that course of action has taken place is grossly unfair.

My information is only what I have read in articles. I know nothing more beyond that and we all know how the press can distort things from time to time.