I apologise for being a little quiet recently. I have been putting the finishing touches to my book, and this has taken up a lot of time. However, I am pleased to say I have finished it now and can address other issues.
I received a note on The Forum the other day from a couple who are having trouble claiming compensation for mis-selling. In my opinion the mantra that the endowments were investments is mistaken.
My view is this, as repeated till I am blue in the face, the polices were sold like cars or washing machines; namely as products with a defined purpose to pay off the mortgage. These products have failed to meet this purpose and, as such, like a car that doesn't work should be replaced with something that does; at the expense of the company that sold the product.
This is the point that must be hammered home at every available opportunity. Forcing the "legal eagles" to recognise this as a point of consumer law rather than investment law is, in my view, the only way that people are going to get adequate compensation.