Extract of emails between myself and a site visitor who sent me a note yesterday:
Read the blog.
Sorry to be a drain on you, but Id like to benefit from your experience if at possible.
On what grounds did company B reject your pre-1988 policy claim?
On what grounds did the FSA suggest you raise with Company A?
What does agency relationship mean? If they had have had one, would they have accepted the claim?
One tack I am planning to take is.......... "determining a client's attitude to risk was not a requirement at the time" - isnt that what the duty of care meant?
Also, did you try quoting the "Alan Barker" case which Halifax settled out of court......he argued that under a 1965 ruling in the appeals court a verbal promise amounted to a warranty...."
Please tho remember that when making investment decisions take independent legal and financial advice....
B rejected on the grounds that the relevant legislation was not in place then to cover their selling of endowments (nice excuse eh!). Somewhere in the bowels of the blog is the letter in full.
FSA suggested I try A because (I think) there may be some duty of care owed by A as B was selling their product.
Agency is where, eg, Fred Bloggs sells you a policy with eg A; and he earns commission. Altho not directly employed by them, because he earns a commission he is in effect holding himself out to be working on their behalf; and as such his actions reflect for good or bad on them. (Remember to double check precise definition with appropriate legal or financial advisor).
Therefore if he does something illegal they are responsible, in my opinion anyway.
B to my view had an agency relationship with A, and indeed A still owe me an answer to this point (see blog of a month or so ago). Sorry it may be a trawl, but as you know the process of claiming is not quick or simple!
I would have thought that duty of care is exactly what you mean.
I quote the Barker case ad nauseam!!!
Try my favourite tack (which has yet to work) but is epostulated in a blog post I made this week, in response to another letter from a visitor....fitness for purpose.
The endowments were sold like TV's or cars with a single purpose...to pay the mortgage. They have failed.
When a TV breaks down due to shoddy workmanship the consumer legislation ensures you get a replacement or money back..to my view because these products were sold like TV's, they should not be treated as investemnts at all.
The more people who take that up as an argument the more likely we, as a group, may get somewhere!
I hope this helps a bit, please stay in contact...."