I have decided to send a response to company B first, before making a submission to the relevant regulatory body. I have copied the body of the text below. The letter has been sent out today:
"...Thank you for your letter dated 28 October.
I have a number of observations regarding the points raised in your letter; including, but not limited to, the following:
The fact that the Financial Services Act came into force eight months after B sold me the endowment does not alter the key question as to whether best practice, from both an ethical and industry-wide perspective, was followed when the policy was sold.
A well regulated ethical company would have been aware of the forthcoming legislation, and would have ensured best practice procedures were in place prior to its implementation; to ensure that the key issues raised by the legislation were addressed.
Whether the FSA has jurisdiction, or not, over policies purchased before April 1988 is irrelevant. I draw you attention to the case summarised in The Times (26 October); whereby David Barker cited a 1965 Court of Appeal judgement by Lord Denning which ruled that a verbal statement which induced someone to take out a contract could be considered to be a warranty. Mr Barker was successful in obtaining compensation from the Halifax for the shortfall in his policy.
As to whether the under-performance of the endowment policy could have been foreseen, or not, is irrelevant. The issue is whether the policy was mis-sold, or not, as per my earlier letter it is my contention that it was mis-sold.
In view of the above, please be advised of the following:
I intend to pursue my case for financial redress.
I have copied this letter, and pertinent details of my situation, to The Times and the Consumers’ Association.
I am drafting a submission to the relevant regulatory authority...."