How to complain about mis sold endowment?

I've got an endowment that is currently worth less than I have put in. It's now over 11 years old and still hasn't even levelled.

I'm in a position now where I'm going to cash it in as I need the equity to move house.

I'm thinking of complaining about the endowment as I have the original paper work which actually states that the policy will be worth more than is paid into it in the "first few years" of the policy and that after that it will make money (or words to that effect)

Anyway, my questions are :-

1) Who should I complain to ? The financial company behind it? (CGU, formerly General Accident) Or is there an ombudsman type organisation who oversees these complaints?

2) Will my cashing it in (I really need as much as I can get now) ruin my chances of getting any compensation at a later date?

3) Is there a website with a guide of how to complain about endowments? If there's a standard letter which I can tailor to suit that would be great.

4) What are my actual chances of a result - Are most complainers getting something or is the usual response a "read the small print.... Your investment can go down as well as up"

I'm not looking for major gains, to be honest I'd be happy if I just got back what I've paid in. I'm currently 1500 down.

Cheers

Cubik.

Reply to
Cubik
Loading thread data ...

This is a good place to start, with details of who to contact & example letters:

formatting link
HTH Vic

Reply to
Vic

Vic,

That's perfect - Just what I was looking for

Thankyou

Cubik

Reply to
Cubik

Complain to the company first, and the ombudsman when you have exhausted the companies complaints procedure.

I read that if it is before a certain date Standard Life are giving to all complainers as they cannot prove otherwise.

On What grounds are you claiming it was mis-sold?

The original illustration would have been a guide only.

Reply to
Phil Deane

Yes, but you've got to write to whoever gave you the advice first. The FOS won't look at it until you've exhausted all avenues with the advisor/insurance company.

Rob Graham

Reply to
Rob Graham

Before you complain about so alleged mis selling you have to be sure on one thing, where you given the advice appropriate to the product and the risks involved with its purchase.

Most endowment plans do not state as you have detailed and they usually state in the documentation from the life office that early encashment may result in you getting less than you put in.

Endowments are multi purpose vehicles, providing valuable life assurance benefits as well as potential mortgage repayment in full, sometimes with a small surplus.

The FSA do not entertain complaints which relate to investment performance alone, there must be some element of either inadequacy or inappropriateness of the advice.

I have been an IFA for many years and despair at the seemingly endless so called mis selling scandals associate with just about every financial product, which in the main come to nothing because any competant adviser would have covered themselves and done their job properly.

The FSA website -

formatting link
has some guidance on this and what you may need to do.

Regards

Ned

Reply to
Ned

My late wife and myself were living in a Housing Association flat, back in 1992. We were one of the first people to be offered the "Do-it-yourself-shared-ownership" scheme, in London, when it first came out. We duely went along to a seminar where somebody working for finacial advisory company on behalf of the housing association, gave a briefing on how the DIYSO scheme works. At that briefing (and there were housing association staff attending) the guy said quite catagorically that people should elect for a repayment type morgage and advised against Endowment type morgages. We liked the scheme so we applied, because I was newly self-employed at the time, and my wife was quite a big earner, we elected for her to buy the house in her name. She was sent to the finacial advisory companies office in Crystal Palace, where her financial eligability was assessed. The net result was that she did not earn enough to get a bank repayment morgage, but then was offered a Endowment morgage through their company.

She was obliged to have life insurance which paid up the full amount on her passing away, so no short fall transpired. Does this constitute mis-selling?

Reply to
Mr Mark

I would say No. They advised a repayment mortgage. You couldn't afford it, they gave another solution, You agreed.

From what you have written they offered the only way possible for you to buy the property. That does not necessarily constitute advice, just the only way you can do it.

If you could prove that she could afford it, and they tricked you into the Endowment, then I would say yes.

Reply to
Phil Deane

Are you saying that the cost of the repayment mortgage was substantially different to that of the endowment mortgage? They are not necessarily the same but don't usually vary by a large margin. If there was no material difference then how come they could offer the endowment mortgage but not the repayment one?

Rob Graham

Reply to
Rob Graham

In message , Mr Mark writes

This sounds extremely fishy indeed.

Quite common at the time and sometimes found today, so not particularly fishy.

For the first bit, then yes.

Reply to
john boyle

Do you know of a lender who applied different income criteria to C&I mortgages than to Interest Only + Endowment Mortgages?

Reply to
john boyle

Because with most lenders a repayment vehicle is not compulsory, if they work on affordability and disposable income, they may not take into account the endowment, therefore being allowed to borrow more.

Reply to
Phil Deane

Yes

One I worked for many years ago was Direct Line Financial Services, who worked on affordability.

With Interest Only it was not compulsory to have a repayment vehicle, therefore it was not taken into account on affordability.

So on Interest Only you could borrow much more than you could on Cap+Int.

Reply to
Phil Deane

In message , Phil Deane writes

Yes I know, but my question had the added '+ Endowment' bit. It was common (but sharp) practice to exclude the intended payment to the capital repayment vehicle from the affordability calculation on the grounds that it wasn't in existence at the time of the application, omitting that it was going to be put in place afterwards! The net result was that the true affordability was the same as for the C&I method.

Reply to
john boyle

In message , Phil Deane writes

Only a very, very few lenders work off affordability alone. And n the circs of the poster I cant think of a circumstance in which they HAD to have an endowment mortgage in order to be able to borrow the amount they needed.

Reply to
john boyle

Correct, basically the difference was that Her bank would not take into account my earnings because I could not prove them long term.

Reply to
Mr Mark

"Phil Deane" wrote

But in that case, was the customer *forced* to take out an Endowment as well as the IO mortgage, like the poster here??

Reply to
Tim

"Phil Deane" wrote

Are you confusing "Interest Only" mortgages with "Endowment" mortgages?

The questions seem to be comparing "Repayment" mortgages with "Endowment" mortgages; you appear to be comparing "Repayment" mortgages with "Interest Only" mortgages!!!

Reply to
Tim

No.

Was the OP forced or strongly advised?

Reply to
Phil Deane

I agree the true affordability was exactly the same but the lender may not have been lending on the basis of "true" affordability, but affordability at time of application, which could have lead to the decision, that interest only is more affordable than a repayment as the endowment was not in place.

Reply to
Phil Deane

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.