|
Finances / Finanzen » uk.finance » Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988
| Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386444] |
Mo, 08 Mai 2006 12:14 |
|
Hi,
There seems to be plenty of information relating to Endowment
misselling but most of it only applies to policies sold after 29th
April 1988. My policy was sold in April 1988 and, when I wrote to the
IFA, I got the following reply (summary):
- It cannot be considered by the Financial Ombudsman
- It it too late to take legal action (15 years).
Is the latter statement correct? Is it feasable to make a claim
without paying a lot of money to a solictor?
TIA, Mark
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386464 ] |
Mo, 08 Mai 2006 18:14 |
|
On Mon, 08 May 2006 11:14:59 +0100, Mark <nospam [at] nospam.spam> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>There seems to be plenty of information relating to Endowment
>misselling but most of it only applies to policies sold after 29th
>April 1988. My policy was sold in April 1988 and, when I wrote to the
>IFA, I got the following reply (summary):
>
>- It cannot be considered by the Financial Ombudsman
>- It it too late to take legal action (15 years).
>
>Is the latter statement correct? Is it feasable to make a claim
>without paying a lot of money to a solictor?
>
>TIA, Mark
I regret I cannot constructively comment on either of your points, but
do have two quite similar queries in relation to my own case, which
concerns a policy incepted in 1990.
The agreed mechanisms for arriving at the level of compensation the
Financial Ombudsman will award appear to be based on what has happened
in the housing market and to borrowing rates since the alleged
mis-selling.
In my own case, I sold the house shortly after taking out the
mortgage, but on the basis of the claims made for the endowment policy
by the bank which acted as agent, I kept up payments on the policy
because it appeared to be a worthwhile investment.
Some years later I received letters from the insurer advising me that
the endowment policy was not likely to perform anything like as well
as the bank had originally indicated in writing that it would, so I
explored the possibility of getting compensation. However because I
do not have a mortgage against which the underperformance of this
policy would create a negative equity scenario, no-one seems
particularly interested.
To my mind, the fact that I no longer have the mortgage makes no
difference to the damages I am likely to sustain as a consequence of
the under-performance of the endoment policy in relation to how the
bank had claimed it would perform.
I feel I would like to sue the bank, but as I see it, there is no
mechanism by which I can reasonably quantify my losses until the 30
year term of the policy has matured, which is approximately 12 years
hence. Indeed, if either myself or my wife were to die prior to that
time, then there would be no shortfall, since the policy would pay out
the stated sum insured on the first of the two lives, and the
investment performance of the policy would be irrelevant.
Does anyone have any insights or advice to offer as to how I might
proceed in this situation? Will I be time-barred if I wait until such
time as I can properly quantify my losses?
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386465 ] |
Mo, 08 Mai 2006 18:17 |
|
>
> Does anyone have any insights or advice to offer as to how I might
> proceed in this situation?
Stop worrying about the past and look forward to the future knowing that you
have a home without a mortgage and a few thousand pounds on the way one day,
which is a great deal more than most of the world has :-)
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386472 ] |
Mo, 08 Mai 2006 19:30 |
|
Mark said:
<
There seems to be plenty of information relating to Endowment
misselling but most of it only applies to policies sold after 29th
April 1988. My policy was sold in April 1988 and, when I wrote to the
IFA, I got the following reply (summary):
- It cannot be considered by the Financial Ombudsman
- It it too late to take legal action (15 years).
Is the latter statement correct? Is it feasable to make a claim
without paying a lot of money to a solictor?
>
Firstly, you might want to make absolutely sure that your claim cannot
be considered by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). Whilst FOS
can't consider all pre April 1988 complaints, they can consider
complaints about some firms. The easiest way to find out whether FOS
can consider your complaint is to ring up and ask - it's helpline is
0845 080 1800.
(Broadly, FOS can consider complaints about firms that used to be part
of the voluntary jurisdiction arrangements, but the rules are
complicated and it will be much easier for you to ring FOS than to try
to decipher the rules).
If FOS can't look at the case, then IMHO you are unlikely to succeed in
court (either with or without a solicitor). The Limitations Act 1980
gives a "long stop" of 15 years, meaning that you can't usually take
action in court if more than 15 years has passed since the wrong
occured. IIRC most of the exceptions relate to fraud, and I suspect
that is unlikely in your case.
Unfortunately the IFA is probably correct.
Mouse.
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386474 ] |
Mo, 08 Mai 2006 19:39 |
|
George Williams said:
<
I feel I would like to sue the bank, but as I see it, there is no
mechanism by which I can reasonably quantify my losses until the 30
year term of the policy has matured, which is approximately 12 years
hence. Indeed, if either myself or my wife were to die prior to that
time, then there would be no shortfall, since the policy would pay out
the stated sum insured on the first of the two lives, and the
investment performance of the policy would be irrelevant.
Does anyone have any insights or advice to offer as to how I might
proceed in this situation? Will I be time-barred if I wait until such
time as I can properly quantify my losses?
>
Will you be time-barred if you wait? Yes, absolutely. If you want to
make a complaint, you should do so as soon as possible.
There are mechanisms to quantify any losses you have made. (See the
FOS website at http://tinyurl.com/l835l for details - you probably want
case 4).
It sounds as though your method of calculating loss is "if the
endowment performed in the way that I was told it would perform, what
position would I be in now". I agree that it's hard to quantify a loss
on that basis if you are only part way through the contract. However,
it is very rare for redress to be awarded on that basis - usually you
only receive that kind of redress if you can show that you were given a
contractually binding guarantee that the maturity value of your policy
would be =A3x.
The FOS's method of calculating loss is "if you had been sold an
appropriate product, what position would you be in *now*". The
emphasis is on the *now* - not on your position at the end of the
contract.
Mouse.
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386488 ] |
Di, 09 Mai 2006 10:08 |
|
On 8 May 2006 10:39:13 -0700, "Mouse" <mauzcmauzc [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>There are mechanisms to quantify any losses you have made. (See the
>FOS website at http://tinyurl.com/l835l for details - you probably want
>case 4).
Thank you for this helpful advice. Unfortunately the above url
doesn't appear to be be correct - could you check it, or perhaps
provide the main link (if you have it)? Many thanks.
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386508 ] |
Di, 09 Mai 2006 20:07 |
|
Sorry about that - try:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/guidance/ mtge_endowment_redress.htm
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386851 ] |
Sa, 13 Mai 2006 14:08 |
|
"Mouse" wrote
> If FOS can't look at the case, then IMHO you are unlikely
> to succeed in court (either with or without a solicitor).
> The Limitations Act 1980 gives a "long stop" of 15 years,
> meaning that you can't usually take action in court if more
> than 15 years has passed since the wrong occured...
Ah, but what exactly is "the wrong"? Is it:-
(1) the selling of the policy (over 15 years ago); or
(2) the value now/in future being "too low"?
Of course, option (2) is *not* yet over 15 years old!
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386852 ] |
Sa, 13 Mai 2006 14:28 |
|
In message <-oOdnbwfa8X4UfjZRVnyvg [at] bt.com>, Tim <me [at] home.uk> writes
>"Mouse" wrote
>> If FOS can't look at the case, then IMHO you are unlikely
>> to succeed in court (either with or without a solicitor).
>> The Limitations Act 1980 gives a "long stop" of 15 years,
>> meaning that you can't usually take action in court if more
>> than 15 years has passed since the wrong occured...
>
>Ah, but what exactly is "the wrong"? Is it:-
> (1) the selling of the policy (over 15 years ago); or
> (2) the value now/in future being "too low"?
>
>Of course, option (2) is *not* yet over 15 years old!
Its the advice that is in question so 2 doesnt apply.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386854 ] |
Sa, 13 Mai 2006 14:41 |
|
> >"Mouse" wrote
> >> If FOS can't look at the case, then IMHO you are unlikely
> >> to succeed in court (either with or without a solicitor).
> >> The Limitations Act 1980 gives a "long stop" of 15 years,
> >> meaning that you can't usually take action in court if more
> >> than 15 years has passed since the wrong occured...
> >
> "Tim" wrote
> >Ah, but what exactly is "the wrong"? Is it:-
> > (1) the selling of the policy (over 15 years ago); or
> > (2) the value now/in future being "too low"?
> >
> >Of course, option (2) is *not* yet over 15 years old!
>
"john boyle" wrote
> Its the advice that is in question so 2 doesnt apply.
How can you be so categorical? ...
If the intervening performance had been so much higher,
then everyone would consider that the advice was correct.
Hence the advice would *not* have been "wrong"!!
In other words, a "wrong" only exists **if** the
subsequent performance is (ie has been) poor, and
thus "the wrong" can arguably be considered to have
occured *while* the performance was being "poor"...
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386856 ] |
Sa, 13 Mai 2006 17:54 |
|
Tim said:
<
If the intervening performance had been so much higher,
then everyone would consider that the advice was correct.
Hence the advice would *not* have been "wrong"!!
>
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you there.
If your circumstances are such that you should only take out low risk
products, but you are advised to a high risk one instead, the advice is
wrong.
The high risk product may indeed perform exceptionally well, and much
better than suitable low risk products - that's why people choose to
take high risks - but that only affects whether you have suffered a
loss as a result of the poor advice. The quality of the advice is
entirely separate to whether you suffer a loss as a result.
Mouse.
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386858 ] |
Sa, 13 Mai 2006 18:20 |
|
In message <CLqdnQEANLNhTvjZRVnysw [at] bt.com>, Tim <me [at] home.uk> writes
>> Its the advice that is in question so 2 doesnt apply.
>
>How can you be so categorical? ...
>
>If the intervening performance had been so much higher,
>then everyone would consider that the advice was correct.
>Hence the advice would *not* have been "wrong"!!
How can you be so categorical without knowing what the advice was? The
>
>In other words, a "wrong" only exists **if** the
>subsequent performance is (ie has been) poor, and
>thus "the wrong" can arguably be considered to have
>occured *while* the performance was being "poor"...
The 'wrong' is not about good or bad performance - it is merely 'was the
client told that the endowment might not pay off the mortgage'. That is
all there is too it.
It is whether any compensation is due that is tested by situation you
describe. E.g. I have come a cross a number of complaints in which the
complaint was upheld because the advice did not make it clear that the
endowment might not repay the mortgage but no compo was paid because the
client was in a better position than he would have been if he had taken
a normal repayment mortgage.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386861 ] |
Sa, 13 Mai 2006 18:51 |
|
"john boyle" wrote
> The 'wrong' is not about good or bad performance - it
> is merely 'was the client told that the endowment might
> not pay off the mortgage'. That is all there is too it.
No client should ever *need* to be told that - because
no investment is *ever* guaranteed. Even government
bonds might not pay out, if civilisation ceases... !!
The question is only over degree of risk...
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386862 ] |
Sa, 13 Mai 2006 18:51 |
|
> "Tim" wrote:
> > If the intervening performance had been so much higher,
> > then everyone would consider that the advice was correct.
> > Hence the advice would *not* have been "wrong"!!
>
"Mouse" wrote
> Sorry, but I have to disagree with you there.
>
> If your circumstances are such that you should only
> take out low risk products, but you are advised
> to a high risk one instead, the advice is wrong.
>
> The high risk product may indeed perform exceptionally well,
> and much better than suitable low risk products - that's why people
> choose to take high risks - but that only affects whether you have
> suffered a loss as a result of the poor advice. The quality of the
> advice is entirely separate to whether you suffer a loss as a result.
Ah, but the quality of the advice must also have something
to do with whether its predictions are correct or not...
Suppose someone gave you a horse-racing tip.
You would usually say that it was "good advice" if it
turned out to be correct and "bad advice" if it turned
out to be wrong. But what you are effectively saying
above, is that the best advice the tipster should
*always* give is "bet on the favourite" -- even
if he is quite sure that the favourite will lose...
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386865 ] |
Sa, 13 Mai 2006 19:25 |
|
In message <A7edneILSIUlk_vZnZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d [at] bt.com>, Tim <me [at] home.uk>
writes
>"john boyle" wrote
>> The 'wrong' is not about good or bad performance - it
>> is merely 'was the client told that the endowment might
>> not pay off the mortgage'. That is all there is too it.
>
>No client should ever *need* to be told that - because
>no investment is *ever* guaranteed. Even government
>bonds might not pay out, if civilisation ceases... !!
>
>The question is only over degree of risk...
But what if that is not explained. (Dont forget we are dealing with the
general public here)
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386882 ] |
So, 14 Mai 2006 10:32 |
|
> >"john boyle" wrote
> >> The 'wrong' is not about good or bad performance - it
> >> is merely 'was the client told that the endowment might
> >> not pay off the mortgage'. That is all there is too it.
> >
> "Tim" wrote
> >No client should ever *need* to be told that - because
> >no investment is *ever* guaranteed. Even government
> >bonds might not pay out, if civilisation ceases... !!
> >
> >The question is only over degree of risk...
>
"john boyle" wrote
> But what if that is not explained. (Dont forget
> we are dealing with the general public here)
Which do you mean:
what if it is not explained "that there is always some risk",
OR: what if "the degree of risk" is not explained?
If you mean the former (if it is not explained "that there is
always some risk"), remember that you *do* have to
assume that the client has at least a minimum level of
understanding -- otherwise, where do you stop? ...
.... Explain to them that 2+2 = 4 ... ?!!
Even if you meant the latter (if "the degree of risk" is not
explained), then that still doesn't affect the fact that the
advice would be "right" if performance turns out to be
good, and "wrong" if performance turns out to be poor...
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386888 ] |
So, 14 Mai 2006 12:16 |
|
In message <rJGdnfx1vbjfdvvZRVnyrA [at] bt.com>, Tim <me [at] home.uk> writes
>Even if you meant the latter (if "the degree of risk" is not
>explained), then that still doesn't affect the fact that the
>advice would be "right" if performance turns out to be
>good, and "wrong" if performance turns out to be poor...
No, you may not fully understand the advice process.
There are separate parts (amongst many others). The first is to identify
the clients attitude to investment risk. The second is to provide an
investment that satisfies and fulfils that attitude to risk. The third
is to provide a product that will also provide a good performance.
The endowment sales complaint process is concerned only with the first
two elements. The third element is irrelevant.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386892 ] |
So, 14 Mai 2006 13:12 |
|
> "Tim" wrote
> >Even if you meant the latter (if "the degree of risk" is not
> >explained), then that still doesn't affect the fact that the
> >advice would be "right" if performance turns out to be
> >good, and "wrong" if performance turns out to be poor...
>
"john boyle" wrote
> No, you may not fully understand the advice process.
But then again, I just might! ;-)
[I've had long enough in the industry
that I ought to understand it by now!]
"john boyle" wrote
> There are separate parts (amongst many others). The
> first is to identify the clients attitude to investment risk.
> The second is to provide an investment that satisfies
> and fulfils that attitude to risk. The third is to provide
> a product that will also provide a good performance.
I'm actually not talking here about the usual strict ("legal")
definition of "advice" used in the financial industry. Which
of course, as you say, has certain specific characteristics.
I'm rather simply saying that whether-or-not it was "right"
or "wrong" for somebody to both **take and keep**
a policy, depends on subsequent performance.
Don't forget that my comment originated from the
mention by 'Mouse' of the Limitations Act 1980.
S/he said: "... you can't usually take action in court if
more than 15 years has passed since the wrong occured."
Well, one "wrong" maybe that the endowment company
didn't point out that the policy was not suitable, when
performance became poor. That's true whether-or-not
the original "advice" was true&complete&proper.
And it's also within the last 15 years...
"john boyle" wrote
> The endowment sales complaint process ...
That's only a very specific type of complaint.
And (indeed) one that wasn't even "invented" when
the Limitations Act mentioned was drafted (1980),
so cannot have been the only application for the Act.
"john boyle" wrote
> ... is concerned only with the first two
> elements. The third element is irrelevant.
Only in the limited context of an "endowment sales complaint".
Not necessarily for other complaints!
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386894 ] |
So, 14 Mai 2006 13:42 |
|
In message <uP6dndAvOMZCjfrZRVnysg [at] bt.com>, Tim <me [at] home.uk> writes
>Well, one "wrong" maybe that the endowment company
>didn't point out that the policy was not suitable, when
>performance became poor.
I disagree with you here. If the correct advice process was followed and
the first two points in my prior post were completed correctly, then
what happens to the investment after the advice was given is irrelevant.
If the advice was given correctly and the attitude to risk was properly
satisfied then the invest should be ready for any outcome. Your
assertion would only be true if the LifeCo undertook to monitor the
performance of the policy from the outset. Some companies did do that
and they regularly hiked up the premiums. Later the FSA said they had to
do send review letters of the green amber red variety so every endowment
holder should have know the position for a number of years.
>That's true whether-or-not
>the original "advice" was true&complete&proper.
>And it's also within the last 15 years...
If you are referring to the failure opf a company to either undertake
its own promised review or a companies failure to send out
gree/amber/red letters then that would be grounds for a complaint.
>> ... is concerned only with the first two
>> elements. The third element is irrelevant.
>
>Only in the limited context of an "endowment sales complaint".
>Not necessarily for other complaints!
That will depend on the nature of the complaint of course. If the
complaint is related to the performance of an investment product then
the structure of advice I have already described would still be the
same. Poor performance would only constitute bad advice if the adviser
failed to identify and satisfy the attitude to risk by recommending the
wrong fund.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386901 ] |
So, 14 Mai 2006 14:43 |
|
> "Tim" wrote
> >Well, one "wrong" maybe that the endowment
> >company didn't point out that the policy was
> >not suitable, when performance became poor.
>
"john boyle" wrote
> I disagree with you here. If the correct advice process
> was followed and the first two points in my prior post
> were completed correctly, then what happens to the
> investment after the advice was given is irrelevant.
Just because the company did "the best it could
do" at the start, should *not* mean that it can
then absolve itself of all responsibility later.
After all, the company will be following
the performance of the funds very closely,
day-by-day, and also will know why the
client took out the policy (eg house purchase)
- so it is best placed to monitor developments.
"john boyle" wrote
> Your assertion would only be true if the LifeCo undertook
> to monitor the performance of the policy from the outset...
Are you suggesting that any LifeCos actually do *not*
bother to monitor their policies' performance?!!
Wouldn't that be rather negligent on their part?
> > "john boyle" wrote
> >> ... The third element is irrelevant.
> >
> "Tim" wrote
> >Only in the limited context of an "endowment sales complaint".
> >Not necessarily for other complaints!
>
"john boyle" wrote
> That will depend on the nature of the complaint of course. If the
> complaint is related to the performance of an investment product then
> the structure of advice I have already described would still be the
> same. Poor performance would only constitute bad advice if ...
It depends on what definition of "bad advice" you use.
You are using the (rather limited & strict) definition
enshrined in legislation. [In which case you are right.]
But, equally, poor performance would *always* mean
that the advice was "bad" in the context that the client
would have been better off using something else!
But anyway we're getting off the point. We were
talking about the Limitations Act. I'm saying that
the *combination* of "initial advice to take this
policy" plus "subsequent poor performance" gives
rise to "the wrong" (as mentioned by Mouse).
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386908 ] |
So, 14 Mai 2006 15:49 |
|
In message <bJmdnV-6tdtkuPrZRVny2g [at] bt.com>, Tim <me [at] home.uk> writes
>> "Tim" wrote
>> >Well, one "wrong" maybe that the endowment
>> >company didn't point out that the policy was
>> >not suitable, when performance became poor.
>>
>"john boyle" wrote
>> I disagree with you here. If the correct advice process
>> was followed and the first two points in my prior post
>> were completed correctly, then what happens to the
>> investment after the advice was given is irrelevant.
>
>Just because the company did "the best it could
>do" at the start, should *not* mean that it can
>then absolve itself of all responsibility later.
I agree. But I am not saying that 'they did their best' I am saying that
did it right.
>
>After all, the company will be following
>the performance of the funds very closely,
>day-by-day, and also will know why the
>client took out the policy (eg house purchase)
>- so it is best placed to monitor developments.
Only if it thought it had guaranteed that the policy would mature with
enough to repay the loan. All the paperwork says that it might not.
Unfortunately the adviser often misrepresented this. In any event, of
course, the LifeCo would only be responsible if it sold the policy. If
an IFA had done so, then they are in the clear.
>
>"john boyle" wrote
>> Your assertion would only be true if the LifeCo undertook
>> to monitor the performance of the policy from the outset...
>
>Are you suggesting that any LifeCos actually do *not*
>bother to monitor their policies' performance?!!
Not in the way you are suggesting. Dont forget that the life co has not
given a guarantee that it would pay out. Having said that, I cant think
of only one or two life funds wroth investing in from a total of
thousands. Life offices are crap at investing money.
>
>Wouldn't that be rather negligent on their part?
Why? So long as the warnings were given at the outset it doesnt matter.
>
>> That will depend on the nature of the complaint of course. If the
>> complaint is related to the performance of an investment product then
>> the structure of advice I have already described would still be the
>> same. Poor performance would only constitute bad advice if ...
>
>It depends on what definition of "bad advice" you use.
>You are using the (rather limited & strict) definition
>enshrined in legislation. [In which case you are right.]
>
>But, equally, poor performance would *always* mean
>that the advice was "bad" in the context that the client
>would have been better off using something else!
Of course. But that 'something else' is decided at the outset. This is
another reason why endowments were so bad, i.e. they were 25 year
contracts and only some of them had the ability to switch funds during
the life of the policy. Due to the contract being a 25 year contract,
and bearing in mind that the LIfeCo takes the stance that it believes
that the client understood the risk warnings, the bad advice is at the
purchase stage, not later.
>
>But anyway we're getting off the point. We were
>talking about the Limitations Act. I'm saying that
>the *combination* of "initial advice to take this
>policy" plus "subsequent poor performance" gives
>rise to "the wrong" (as mentioned by Mouse).
I assert that the subsequent poor performance is irrelevant because the
likelihood of poor performance should have been made clear. It if it was
NOT made clear then the complaint is upheld. The subsequent performance
is not relevant to the complaint and only determines the amount of
compensation if any. As already said, I have seen a number of cases were
complaints have been upheld but no compo paid.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386912 ] |
So, 14 Mai 2006 17:01 |
|
The IFA is correct, there is not much that can be done for cases prior
to FSA 1986 which came in force in 1988.
The limitation act applies in this case.
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386958 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 10:14 |
|
On Sun, 14 May 2006 12:42:24 +0100, john boyle
<john [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <uP6dndAvOMZCjfrZRVnysg [at] bt.com>, Tim <me [at] home.uk> writes
>>Well, one "wrong" maybe that the endowment company
>>didn't point out that the policy was not suitable, when
>>performance became poor.
>
>I disagree with you here. If the correct advice process was followed and
>the first two points in my prior post were completed correctly, then
>what happens to the investment after the advice was given is irrelevant.
>If the advice was given correctly and the attitude to risk was properly
>satisfied then the invest should be ready for any outcome. Your
>assertion would only be true if the LifeCo undertook to monitor the
>performance of the policy from the outset. Some companies did do that
>and they regularly hiked up the premiums. Later the FSA said they had to
>do send review letters of the green amber red variety so every endowment
>holder should have know the position for a number of years.
My endowment company have not been clear over the performance of my
policy. I have never received any "green", "amber" or "red" letters.
They did say a while ago that they would "make up" a certain amount of
shortfall. However they did not tell me if it would make up the whole
amount of shortfall on my policy. My last annual review just said
"you will get your fair share".
>>That's true whether-or-not
>>the original "advice" was true&complete&proper.
>>And it's also within the last 15 years...
>
>If you are referring to the failure opf a company to either undertake
>its own promised review or a companies failure to send out
>gree/amber/red letters then that would be grounds for a complaint.
Could this apply in my case? i.e. Sold before April 88 through an
IFA. I doubt it :-(
>>> ... is concerned only with the first two
>>> elements. The third element is irrelevant.
>>
>>Only in the limited context of an "endowment sales complaint".
>>Not necessarily for other complaints!
Mark.
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386973 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 13:29 |
|
In message <0edg62556shafpt0ea2pbam3v9fnpe2p90 [at] 4ax.com>, Mark
<nospam [at] nospam.spam> writes
>My endowment company have not been clear over the performance of my
>policy. I have never received any "green", "amber" or "red" letters.
>They did say a while ago that they would "make up" a certain amount of
>shortfall. However they did not tell me if it would make up the whole
>amount of shortfall on my policy. My last annual review just said
>"you will get your fair share".
>Could this apply in my case? i.e. Sold before April 88 through an
>IFA. I doubt it :-(
Sadly, you are correct! What company is it?
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386982 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 15:48 |
|
In message <A7edneILSIUlk_vZnZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d [at] bt.com>, Tim <me [at] home.uk>
writes
>"john boyle" wrote
>> The 'wrong' is not about good or bad performance - it
>> is merely 'was the client told that the endowment might
>> not pay off the mortgage'. That is all there is too it.
>
>No client should ever *need* to be told that - because
>no investment is *ever* guaranteed. Even government
>bonds might not pay out, if civilisation ceases... !!
>
>The question is only over degree of risk...
If you took out (or 'gave' for the benefit of the pedants!) a repayment
mortgage and made every payment then at the end of the term you were
guaranteed to have paid off the mortgage.
If you took out an interest only mortgage and took out a low cost
endowment then you were not guaranteed to pay off the mortgage.
--
Timothy
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386984 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 16:18 |
|
On Mon, 15 May 2006 12:29:45 +0100, john boyle
<john [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <0edg62556shafpt0ea2pbam3v9fnpe2p90 [at] 4ax.com>, Mark
><nospam [at] nospam.spam> writes
>
>>My endowment company have not been clear over the performance of my
>>policy. I have never received any "green", "amber" or "red" letters.
>>They did say a while ago that they would "make up" a certain amount of
>>shortfall. However they did not tell me if it would make up the whole
>>amount of shortfall on my policy. My last annual review just said
>>"you will get your fair share".
>
>
>>Could this apply in my case? i.e. Sold before April 88 through an
>>IFA. I doubt it :-(
>
>Sadly, you are correct! What company is it?
It used to be Norwich Union. I can't remember what it's called this
week. ;-)
Mark
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386995 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 21:32 |
|
In message <9d3h6298u60gpq474ubradbojbgb29nqo4 [at] 4ax.com>, Mark
<nospam [at] nospam.spam> writes
>On Mon, 15 May 2006 12:29:45 +0100, john boyle
><john [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <0edg62556shafpt0ea2pbam3v9fnpe2p90 [at] 4ax.com>, Mark
>><nospam [at] nospam.spam> writes
>>
>>>My endowment company have not been clear over the performance of my
>>>policy. I have never received any "green", "amber" or "red" letters.
>>>They did say a while ago that they would "make up" a certain amount of
>>>shortfall. However they did not tell me if it would make up the whole
>>>amount of shortfall on my policy. My last annual review just said
>>>"you will get your fair share".
>>
>>
>>>Could this apply in my case? i.e. Sold before April 88 through an
>>>IFA. I doubt it :-(
>>
>>Sadly, you are correct! What company is it?
>
>It used to be Norwich Union. I can't remember what it's called this
>week. ;-)
Well actually, Norwich Union is the brand name for many other old names
but if it was originally called Norwich Union then it will still be
called Norwich Union. Are you making this up?
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #386996 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 21:35 |
|
In message <Mz59O8ElaIaEFw5R [at] town-village.demon.co.uk>, "me [at] privacy.net"
<me [at] Privacy.Net> writes
>In message <A7edneILSIUlk_vZnZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d [at] bt.com>, Tim <me [at] home.uk>
>writes
>>"john boyle" wrote
>>> The 'wrong' is not about good or bad performance - it
>>> is merely 'was the client told that the endowment might
>>> not pay off the mortgage'. That is all there is too it.
>>
>>No client should ever *need* to be told that - because
>>no investment is *ever* guaranteed. Even government
>>bonds might not pay out, if civilisation ceases... !!
>>
>>The question is only over degree of risk...
>
>If you took out (or 'gave' for the benefit of the pedants!) a repayment
>mortgage
Actually it should be 'if I took out loan on a repayment basis for which
I gave a mortgage over my house...'. You can not 'give' a repayment.
>and made every payment then at the end of the term you were guaranteed
>to have paid off the mortgage.
Only if you altered the payments when they told you.
>
>If you took out an interest only mortgage and took out a low cost
>endowment then you were not guaranteed to pay off the mortgage.
>
But you would if you altered the payments when they told you. (I know it
would likely cost you a lot more but you need to have a like for like
comparison)
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #387017 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 09:32 |
|
On Mon, 15 May 2006 20:32:31 +0100, john boyle
<john [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <9d3h6298u60gpq474ubradbojbgb29nqo4 [at] 4ax.com>, Mark
><nospam [at] nospam.spam> writes
>>On Mon, 15 May 2006 12:29:45 +0100, john boyle
>><john [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <0edg62556shafpt0ea2pbam3v9fnpe2p90 [at] 4ax.com>, Mark
>>><nospam [at] nospam.spam> writes
>>>
>>>>My endowment company have not been clear over the performance of my
>>>>policy. I have never received any "green", "amber" or "red" letters.
>>>>They did say a while ago that they would "make up" a certain amount of
>>>>shortfall. However they did not tell me if it would make up the whole
>>>>amount of shortfall on my policy. My last annual review just said
>>>>"you will get your fair share".
>>>
>>>
>>>>Could this apply in my case? i.e. Sold before April 88 through an
>>>>IFA. I doubt it :-(
>>>
>>>Sadly, you are correct! What company is it?
>>
>>It used to be Norwich Union. I can't remember what it's called this
>>week. ;-)
>
>Well actually, Norwich Union is the brand name for many other old names
>but if it was originally called Norwich Union then it will still be
>called Norwich Union. Are you making this up?
No. Why would anyone make this up? On my bank statements the name
of the company that is taking the direct debit payment keeps changing.
It confuses the hell out of Micro$oft Money.
Mark.
|
|
|
| Re: Endowment misselling before 29th April 1988 [message #387263 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 14:53 |
|
In message <j12j62h1024kff0hep2hqfskmt4v8slmd9 [at] 4ax.com>, Mark
<nospam [at] nospam.spam> writes
>No. Why would anyone make this up? On my bank statements the name
>of the company that is taking the direct debit payment keeps changing.
>It confuses the hell out of Micro$oft Money.
Well if it started out as Norwich Union (which is what I understand your
post to say) then it should still be Norwich Union and not have changed.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Feb 9 00:23:50 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,11550 Sekunden |
