HPS financial services then - who to complain to now?

bobber

Brilliant advice defender of the weak and FOSman - thanks!

Looking at my paperwork of my original mortgage the interest rate with C&G was 9.6%!! Crikey!

That is very interesting to hear that I should complain about the second too to help the first - makes sense, but I had imagined it would make it worse so thank god I came here and asked!

Yes - I did the Which letter initially and saved it, but didnt like the way it read so will definitely rewrite it.

Should I submit p/copies of my original fact find info with the complaint letters? Im recalling some advice somewhere where it said not to include other paperwork - I am possibly imagining this though.

FOSman

I would send a copy. Never send originals. That fact find is your hard evidence.

bobber

Hello again

Would really appreciate some advice again, if thats ok? Im in the process of writing my complaint letter to the 2nd endowment - the Scottish Widows House purchase Savings plan one sold by the B&B IFA - and Im struggling. The main reason i've given is that it states on fact find that I didnt want life cover and critical illness, but then states that reason for product choice was for its life cover and critical illness.

As mentioned before, the IFA has stated that I have a 'positive attitude to investment linked repayment methods but is keen not to be exposed to equity investments and prefers the flexibility of endowment based repayments should she wish to move to a larger property' - I actually went there saying I didnt want another endowment!!!
Is there evidence in his statement I can use? ie Is it easier to move with a repayment mortgage than an endowment? Does the scottish widows policy include equity investments - I havent a clue? (I know Im clutching at straws here as his word against mine)?

The only other written evidence I have is the date of the personalised policy breakdown from scottish widows, which is a week before the actual mortgage fact find meeting. No other policy breakdowns were shown, so he intended to sell me it before discussing my needs. Should I include this?

Oh god - I've written far too much again - sorry!

EdInvestor

As mentioned before, the IFA has stated that I have a 'positive attitude to investment linked repayment methods but is keen not to be exposed to equity investments

If you stated that you did not want to be exposed to equity investments then an endowment will not have matched your attitude to risk and thus will have been unsuitable, and thus a mis-sale.

Endowments at that time were mainly invested in equities.

dunstonh

If you stated that you did not want to be exposed to equity investments then an endowment will not have matched your attitude to risk and thus will have been unsuitable, and thus a mis-sale.

Why? (i disagree if you hadn't guessed)

bobber

Thanks for the replies - am bit confused though by different opinions...

So have looked at the 'bumpf' that explained policy and it states that Im investing in 'unitised with profits' - so does this give any more clues whether its an equity investment?

It says 'unitised with profits has a wide range of investments. The value of units in this fund is not directly linked to the value of the underlying investments but is determined by the bonuses we declare....etc'.

Also just seen that the critical illness cover was optional in the booklet!!!!!!! Why on earth did I have to have it then when i expressly said I didnt want it?

Am sorry to sound thick - but this is so confusing.

dunstonh

It says 'unitised with profits has a wide range of investments. The value of units in this fund is not directly linked to the value of the underlying investments but is determined by the bonuses we declare....etc'.

Sounds accurate. As you may have seen on another thread running, Ed is confused over direct investment and investing in a fund which contains stockmarket investments (in addition to other things). It is not a direct investment into equities.

As is clear on the other thread, the wording is confusing but there is a distinct difference. One word added or removed can alter the meaning significantly.

Like the other thread, arguing over whether the fund is balanced risk or cautious risk or whether or not its direct equity or not is pointless. Your arguement should be that you didnt want investment risk full stop, not arguing over degrees of risk.

Also just seen that the critical illness cover was optional in the booklet!!!!!!! Why on earth did I have to have it then when i expressly said I didnt want it?

You didnt have to have it. CI has always been an optional benefit. Can you prove you said you didn't want it? I don't think you will get very far on this point personally. You probably cant prove you didnt want it. The advisor is obliged to recommend it and that would be shown. The illustration would have shown it included as would the information sent with the cancellation rights and the reason why letter. My guess is that they would argue that you had enough information given to you saying it was included. I would wait until FOSMAN comes back on this point though as he would be a better reference point.

EdInvestor

dunstonh wrote:

As you may have seen on another thread running, Ed is confused over direct investment and investing in a fund which contains stockmarket investments (in addition to other things). It is not a direct investment into equities.

Not the point at all.

I quote from the Which? guidance on misselling complaints:

Grounds for complaint

Listed below are four main grounds for complaint - one or more of these may apply to you.Remember, you are complaining about the advice you received when you bought your endowment, not the performance of your policy or the fact you may have a shortfall.

You may want to think about your attitude to risk when you bought the endowment policy before you make a complaint.

1. Was the endowment suitable for you?
Your adviser should have made sure an endowment was the best way of repaying your mortgage depending on:
Your financial circumstances at the time
Your attitude to risk.

These are some of the reasons why the mortgage may not have been suitable for you:

#Other options for repaying the mortgage were not discussed fully with you.
#The adviser didn't explain how your endowment would be invested and explain the risks involved.
#The adviser didn't explain that an endowment policy is a long-term commitment that gives a poor return if you cash it in early.
#The adviser didn't check you were comfortable with the risks of stock market investment.....

Of course pretty well all endowments were invested mainly in the stockmarket whether they were in With profits funds or unit-linked funds, that's why they are mostly showing shortfalls because the stockmarket crashed.

And that's why if the IFA claimed the endowment was not exposed to stockmarket risk, then it's a mis-sale because
a)he didn't explain properly how your policy was invested and the risks involved and
b)he didn't make sure you were comfortable with stockmarket risk.

Your arguement should be that you didnt want investment risk full stop..

Quite.

dunstonh

#The adviser didn't explain how your endowment would be invested and explain the risks involved.

Correct

#The adviser didn't check you were comfortable with the risks of stock market investment.....

Incorrect. What if the fund recommended was property, gilts, fixed interest, index linked, corporate bonds etc. None of these have any stockmarket investment.

However, thats why Which say "These are some of the reasons why the mortgage may not have been suitable for you". Some may apply. Some may not.

And that's why if the IFA claimed the endowment was not exposed to stockmarket risk, then it's a mis-sale because
a)he didn't explain properly how your policy was invested and the risks involved and
b)he didn't make sure you were comfortable with stockmarket risk.

Read bobbers post and you see it says "It says 'unitised with profits has a wide range of investments. The value of units in this fund is not directly linked to the value of the underlying investments but is determined by the bonuses we declare....etc'."

That statement is totally correct.

bobber

Thanks for the advice.

I'll just put it all down and see what happens. Im feeling far less confident with this than the Standard Life one.

I'm really annoyed that I didnt do anything at the time, as I really wasnt happy with what was offered even at that time (......as for its performance now - its absolutely dreadful). I was just keen to get all the paperwork sorted asap before I lost out on the house I was buying and my own sale so didnt want to risk the time delay.

I have definitely learnt a lesson from this!!

I will let you know the outcome of both complaints - and thanks again for the help.