Endowment - Scottish Life Assigned policy query....

Hi All
I wonder if anybody could shed any light on the following...
A good friend has a Endowment Mortgage. The policy was originally taken out with Scottish Life but it seems assigned to the Building Society.
When the takeover of Scot. Life by Royal London took place a few years back we seem to recall that they were informed that as the policy had been assigned to the BS they were told they would not get the single paymenr of (I think) $500.00 but as it was a "with profits" policy the bonus that would have been paid on top of the £500 would be available when the endowment came to end.
On speaking to the BS it seems they have no knowledge of "anything like this" nor comprehension of the query. Its not a complaint as they seem to suggest but just wanting to know what the situation is.
Would BS have actually benefited to the tune of £500 when this payout was made or not and what has/will happen to any extra that may have been paid due to the "with profits" element.
If anybody with more knowledge or experience could fill us in it would be very much appreciated.
TIA.
Reply to
Finance
AFAIK you should get the money. I certainly did when I got some money from Scottish Widows and Im pretty sure it was assigned at the time. Are you sure you qualified? You should go via Royal London not the bs.
Reply to
Tumbleweed
In message , Tumbleweed writes
I seem to remember that one or two of the LIfeInsCo demutualisations have only paid out benefits to members who were also the beneficial owners of the polices. In this case neither the life assured or the assignee satisfied both requirements, so no pay out to either of them. To my certain knowledge Scot Wids was NOT one of those LIfeCos.
I agree that there is no point approaching the assignee.
Reply to
john boyle

What bastards! AFAICS assigmenent is a purely arbitrary process. Some of my policies have goen from being assigned to unassigned and back again and finally at unassigned now as it seems to be out of favour. Just seems a whim on the behalf of teh BS and nothing meaningful. Until this happens. If you knew it was likely to happen you'd either be much more careful with your bs or which mortgage you took out.
Reply to
Tumbleweed
In message , Tumbleweed writes
At one time ALL lenders took assignments over polices, they only stopped cos it got too expensive.
NO, it is the LifeInsCo that are the bastards. Why criticise the BS?
Actually, now I think about it, it is the MEMBERS of the Life InsCo that are the bastards because they approved the demutualisation proposal, so the OP's good friend, as he was a member, has only himself to blame.
Reply to
john boyle

YOu are right I didnt word it well enough. But maybe they are both bastards, since the bs should have intervened on behalf of their members, with the lifeco. As to the OP, I dont see how he's to blame, he may have voted against, and even if he voted for, I bet the details of who would get paid werent mentioned in the motion. I am also sure that they didnt mention these future intentions as to what they would do with the proceeds, when he got his policy..
Reply to
Tumbleweed
In message , Tumbleweed writes
Sadly, the assignee, being the BS, didnt have the right to vote as they werent members of the LifeCo. Absurd??? Of course!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes they were. It was a topic of discussion at the time.
Of course they werent. How on earth could anybody possibly know what the motion was going to be when the policy was sold?
Reply to
john boyle
[snip]
Well, obviously, as I said before, like, all credit to the rest of your rant, but at the end of the deh, an assignment is anything but meaningless. It means that the p/h needs the assignee's consent to any dealings with the policy.
Reply to
Rhoy the Bhoy

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.