Q for FOSman and DunstonH...and all

FOSman

OK, about the retirement bit. Of course you would have know the term. Why didn't you question it at the time?? Can't you add???

Also, for the adjudicator to uphold the retirement bit, you have to prove that you would have a) not known that it went past your retirement (pretty impossible), and b) show that you could have afforded it over the shorter term.

plucky_phil

Yes we can add, but it was only a date. It wasnt highlighted that this was eight years into retirement.

Could we have afforded it? YES!! And the adviser would have seen that if she had recorded my salary correctly!!

But of course, she was only required by the PIA and adopted LAUTRO rules to do so.



For the info of others:

Paragraph L1 (Policy of Code) of the LAUTRO rules states: (1) This Code of Conduct is made for the purpose of ensuring that Members and their company representatives and introducers, in the course of carrying on any relevant business:

(a) comply with the Principles and generally maintain high standards of integrity and fair dealing, in particular in relation to investors.

(b) exercise due skill, care and diligence in providing any services in the course of that business

(c) generally take proper account of the interests of investors.

FOSman

Sorry mate, you knew how old you were, you knew how long the policy was to run. Most of these retirement complaints should be time barred unless they show to have been unsuitable recommendations.

There is nothing wrong with a policy running past your retirement, unless you couldn't afford to pay it after you retired. If you were worried about the policy, then you should have said something at the time. You didn't, and so you accepted the term.

Are you telling us you didn't know when you were going to retire?? Or are you telling us that you didn't know how old you were?? You're going to have to take responsibility for this one I'm afraid.

plucky_phil

FOSMAN, Well in your eyes thats the retirement bit sorted!

So, what about the understating of income etc? I suppose thats all ok as well, as long as you can con your customers into signing the secondary forms?