We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
HPS financial services then - who to complain to now?
Options
Comments
-
Can I ask the dates for when you took out these policies?FOSman :beer:0
-
About the CIC cover. It would have been on the policy schedule when you arranged it. If you had continued not to want it, then you should have said something at the time. There is no way the CIC element is going to be upheld here.
I'm doing a case for a man who was just paralysed, and it makes you think, if this man had been sold CIC, for only £2 per month extra, he would now be in a much better financial position. People are happy to complain now with the benefit of hindsight. Just be thankful you have not had to claim on it.FOSman :beer:0 -
I guess you will have had a decent windfall from Widows at least Bobber, which will have helpedTrying to keep it simple...0
-
Thanks again.
I had first SL in 92 and second SW in 98.
I knew the CIC was on the policy at the time, it was the fact that I didnt know I didnt have to have it - i was led to believe it was a compulsory part of the endowment. The IFA told me it was included - I said I didnt want it, but I wasnt given option not to have it. I was 29, single with no dependents and had a job with good ill health retirement package, so didnt feel it necessary then - i told the IFA this and it states it in the 'fact find'.
In the paperwork it states that I was " happy to review this type of protection at a later date and wishes to defer any discussion due to the additional cost of cover" and it then later stated that CIC was included for this endowment and I had declined additional CI to cover first endowment. He even stated that the CIC was a reason for the choice of product!
I know that the case is very weak because the IFA has written the paperwork very carefully and is not representative of what actually went on in the meeting, but I cant prove that. I wanted a repayment mortgage and told him that, and ended up with another endowment because I was told it was the most suitable for me - the SW endowment was the only product shown at the meeting. I needed to finalise the paperwork quickly for the housemove so agreed it all there and then.
The windfall was nice (£500) - a friend actually got 1000s, and he never understood why, as he only had 1 small regular savings account with SW and only had a tiny amount in the account! He never queried it and nor did SW.0 -
Hello again
Just a quick update. Heard from SL today and they have upheld my complaint and have offered me nearly £4000 in compensation, so thanks very much for all the advice.
One little query, after I posted last I noticed that the adviser had actually not altered the amount for the endowment when the property and mortgage amount went down - ie, he managed to alter the starting date to tally with the revised mortgage (price of property went down by £1000 as compensation for sellers unnecessary delay) but he kept the endowmnet the original amount. Looking at the ombudsman decision trees, that was one reason for a misell and should get extra amount paid returned as comp. I did alert SL to this in a letter attached to my questionnaire, but they mentioned only calculating the difference between repayment mortgage etc on their offer. Should I bother querying this?
Cheers0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards