How "nice", Legal & General (L&G) wrote to me yesterday advising me that one of my "with profits" (a misnomer if ever there was one) endowment polices that I have with them will experience a shortfall.
The policy, which was taken out in 1991, will mature next year.
Its target was £39,700.
The expected shortfall, depending on whether the investment return is between 4%-8% (fat chance in today's markets!), is expected to be between £13K and £14K.
That's a shortfall of between 32%-35%!
Given that the whole point of these rip off policies was to pay off a mortgage debt, I am less than "impressed" with the performance of this product.
The good news is that L&G make a nice little earner from management charges for "manging" this crock of shite.
They even suggest, as one possible solution for making up the shortfall, that I extend the term or top it up!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let us not forget that the purpose of these shite products was to pay
off mortgage debts, they have failed.
Therefore the products are faulty.
I am amazed that no one has yet brought a class action against the companies who "manage" these failed products.
If there are any law companies out there who want to try a class action, feel free to contact me.
Showing posts with label class action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label class action. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Class Actions
Class Actions
This week's Queen's Speech has raised the possibility of hapless endowment policy holders being able to mount class actions against the life assurance industry.
The government proposes to give consumers the right, for the first time, to take "class action" suits through the courts in cases of large-scale wrongdoing such as endowment mis-selling or personal pensions.
This is something that I have been calling for over many years. Not only has the financial services industry mis-sold these flawed and badly designed products, but they have mismanagement them (despite awarding themselves very generous "management" fees and commissions).
The consumer will not only has grounds for suing wrt mis-selling, but also has grounds based on the fact that the products are not fit for purpose (ie they did not pay off the mortgage, which is what they were meant to do).
Why buy the product if it wasn't going to work?
Unfortunately, there is little chance of this becoming law this side of the election.
This week's Queen's Speech has raised the possibility of hapless endowment policy holders being able to mount class actions against the life assurance industry.
The government proposes to give consumers the right, for the first time, to take "class action" suits through the courts in cases of large-scale wrongdoing such as endowment mis-selling or personal pensions.
This is something that I have been calling for over many years. Not only has the financial services industry mis-sold these flawed and badly designed products, but they have mismanagement them (despite awarding themselves very generous "management" fees and commissions).
The consumer will not only has grounds for suing wrt mis-selling, but also has grounds based on the fact that the products are not fit for purpose (ie they did not pay off the mortgage, which is what they were meant to do).
Why buy the product if it wasn't going to work?
Unfortunately, there is little chance of this becoming law this side of the election.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Things Will Only Get Worse
Things Will Only Get Worse
Those of you who hung onto a flimsy straw of hope that the recent rebound in the FTSE may help draw a line under your collapsing "with profits" (such a misnomer for such a lousy product) endowment policy, need to read this article in The Times.
The bottom line is that the returns will worsen, and that the life assurance companies will continue to cut bonuses.
Either way, in good times or bad, the policy holder picks up the bill for the failures of these useless products and the conmen who sold them to you.
We need a class action to bring these companies to heel!
Those of you who hung onto a flimsy straw of hope that the recent rebound in the FTSE may help draw a line under your collapsing "with profits" (such a misnomer for such a lousy product) endowment policy, need to read this article in The Times.
The bottom line is that the returns will worsen, and that the life assurance companies will continue to cut bonuses.
Either way, in good times or bad, the policy holder picks up the bill for the failures of these useless products and the conmen who sold them to you.
We need a class action to bring these companies to heel!
Monday, September 08, 2008
Norwich Union Cut Bonuses
Norwich Union Cut Bonuses
Norwich Union have delivered another blow to the tattered reputation of the life assurance industry, and its much derided and failed product of endowment policies.
Norwich have told their 2.4M with-profits policy fund holders that it will cut policies maturing this year by 11%, in comparison with those that matured last year.
The phrase "with-profits" sounds somewhat hollow does it not?
I wonder why it is that no one has tried to sue the life assurance industry for misrepresenting their product by using that phrase?
The theory of with-profits policies is that they are meant to smooth returns. However, given the ongoing cuts in these policies, that theory appears to be half baked. The life assuring companies have quite clearly mismanaged these policies.
The cuts made by Norwich Union are in line with the fall in the FTSE 100 index over the past 12 months, and that means that the "smoothing" has had no benefit or effect whatsoever.
The changes mean that payouts from Norwich's top-paying mortgage endowment fund dropped by 5%, or £2,144, overnight.
Those who hold these useless, mismanaged polices should take a class action against the life assurance industry for:
-misrepresentation
-mis-selling
-mismanagement
-overcharging
Norwich Union have delivered another blow to the tattered reputation of the life assurance industry, and its much derided and failed product of endowment policies.
Norwich have told their 2.4M with-profits policy fund holders that it will cut policies maturing this year by 11%, in comparison with those that matured last year.
The phrase "with-profits" sounds somewhat hollow does it not?
I wonder why it is that no one has tried to sue the life assurance industry for misrepresenting their product by using that phrase?
The theory of with-profits policies is that they are meant to smooth returns. However, given the ongoing cuts in these policies, that theory appears to be half baked. The life assuring companies have quite clearly mismanaged these policies.
The cuts made by Norwich Union are in line with the fall in the FTSE 100 index over the past 12 months, and that means that the "smoothing" has had no benefit or effect whatsoever.
The changes mean that payouts from Norwich's top-paying mortgage endowment fund dropped by 5%, or £2,144, overnight.
Those who hold these useless, mismanaged polices should take a class action against the life assurance industry for:
-misrepresentation
-mis-selling
-mismanagement
-overcharging
Monday, July 14, 2008
Equitable Life
Equitable Life
The long suffering, and shockingly mistreated, investors in Equitable Life may be slightly cheered by a report in today's Telegraph that says:
"Prudential, Legal & General and Swiss Re are among a pack of insurance giants circling Equitable Life, Britain's oldest mutual insurer.
Equitable has drawn up a shortlist of bidders for the remnants of the former insurance leader, which at its peak was worth £26bn and had 1.5m policyholders.
News of prospective bids for the business comes ahead of this week's publication of a damning report by Ann Abraham, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, who will criticise the Government for its failure to regulate the society properly in the lead-up to its near collapse."
The purchase, if it comes, will take some time. Therefore, whilst the investors are waiting for the outcome of that, they should mount a class action against the government for its maladministration of one of the biggest scandals to shake Britain's financial services industry.
The long suffering, and shockingly mistreated, investors in Equitable Life may be slightly cheered by a report in today's Telegraph that says:
"Prudential, Legal & General and Swiss Re are among a pack of insurance giants circling Equitable Life, Britain's oldest mutual insurer.
Equitable has drawn up a shortlist of bidders for the remnants of the former insurance leader, which at its peak was worth £26bn and had 1.5m policyholders.
News of prospective bids for the business comes ahead of this week's publication of a damning report by Ann Abraham, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, who will criticise the Government for its failure to regulate the society properly in the lead-up to its near collapse."
The purchase, if it comes, will take some time. Therefore, whilst the investors are waiting for the outcome of that, they should mount a class action against the government for its maladministration of one of the biggest scandals to shake Britain's financial services industry.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Barmy FSA Regulation
Barmy FSA Regulation
The Treasury Select Committee has published their report based on their inquiry into inherited estates. The Committee is none too complimentary about the Financial Services Authority’s (FSA) regulation of the with-profits industry.
Quote:
"The Committee concludes that the Financial Services Authority (FSA) is not providing a robust enough framework to manage the conflicts of interest inherent in proprietary life funds."
I am hardly surprised, the FSA's "regulation" has been all but non existent.
Chairman of the Committee, the Rt Hon John McFall MP said:
"The approach taken by the FSA towards inherited estates seems a long way from the philosophy of 'principles-based regulation' to which it aspires. Policyholders need to have confidence that their interests are being protected, but the current oversight by the FSA gives no such assurance.
Policyholders deserve a regulatory framework based on a clear set of principles and unambiguous guidance on how inherited estate can be used by life firms’ management."
He refers to FSA regulation as "barmy":
"Shareholder tax is another example of the FSA's barmy regulation in this field."
He then goes on to put a well aimed boot into Prudential:
"I was astonished that the Prudential had taken £1.6 billion from their inherited estate to pay the costs of compensation arising from mis-selling."
Then Norwich Union:
"Tens of thousands of Norwich Union’s longest-standing policyholders do not stand to receive the whole value of the recently announced special distribution. The Committee was not convinced by the argument that such phasing of payments was necessary for the stability of the funds concerned.
In my view, phasing represents an unreasonable barrier for policyholders wishing to exit the fund."
The Committee calls on the FSA to take action in several areas to ensure that policyholders interests are protected, including the following:
It is clear that those with money stuck in these lousy endowment funds have been ill served by the FSA. It really is worth, in my view, considering mounting a class action against the FSA and the life assurance companies for this disgraceful situation.
The Treasury Select Committee has published their report based on their inquiry into inherited estates. The Committee is none too complimentary about the Financial Services Authority’s (FSA) regulation of the with-profits industry.
Quote:
"The Committee concludes that the Financial Services Authority (FSA) is not providing a robust enough framework to manage the conflicts of interest inherent in proprietary life funds."
I am hardly surprised, the FSA's "regulation" has been all but non existent.
Chairman of the Committee, the Rt Hon John McFall MP said:
"The approach taken by the FSA towards inherited estates seems a long way from the philosophy of 'principles-based regulation' to which it aspires. Policyholders need to have confidence that their interests are being protected, but the current oversight by the FSA gives no such assurance.
Policyholders deserve a regulatory framework based on a clear set of principles and unambiguous guidance on how inherited estate can be used by life firms’ management."
He refers to FSA regulation as "barmy":
"Shareholder tax is another example of the FSA's barmy regulation in this field."
He then goes on to put a well aimed boot into Prudential:
"I was astonished that the Prudential had taken £1.6 billion from their inherited estate to pay the costs of compensation arising from mis-selling."
Then Norwich Union:
"Tens of thousands of Norwich Union’s longest-standing policyholders do not stand to receive the whole value of the recently announced special distribution. The Committee was not convinced by the argument that such phasing of payments was necessary for the stability of the funds concerned.
In my view, phasing represents an unreasonable barrier for policyholders wishing to exit the fund."
The Committee calls on the FSA to take action in several areas to ensure that policyholders interests are protected, including the following:
- To ensure that a fair price is offered in a re attribution, not just an adequate price.
- To provide a very strong case about why the phasing of special distribution payouts should be permitted, noting that the FSA has yet to put forward an adequate case.
- To consult on a redesign of the overall regulatory system for with-profits funds during 2008. The Committee said that they are not satisfied that the FSA has done enough to provide a robust framework.
- To consult on the charging of shareholder tax to the inherited estate by the end of 2008, noting that their view is that it should not be permitted.
It is clear that those with money stuck in these lousy endowment funds have been ill served by the FSA. It really is worth, in my view, considering mounting a class action against the FSA and the life assurance companies for this disgraceful situation.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Fingers in The Pie
Fingers in The Pie
The trouble with some of the life assurance companies that are "managing" this country's useless and underperforming endowment policies, is that they can't seem to distinguish between assets that belong to their hapless and much put upon policy holders and the company's assets.
Normally, this "confusion" over ownership is demonstrated by the excessive and unjustified management charges levied by life assurers against the minuscule returns of the endowment policies that they fail to manage.
However, Norwich Union have found another way to tap the assets of their hapless endowment policy holders. The Times reports that Norwich Union has helped itself to £300M of policyholders' funds, in order to plug a hole in its own pension fund and to pay for its own mis-selling costs.
Some would argue that it is pretty rich of Norwich Union to help themselves in this manner, in fact most people with any concept of ownership and property would argue this. However, Norwich Union is unabashed; safe in the knowledge that it can do this, because it can do this.
If only life were that simple and profitable for its policy holders!
Needless to say this raid on the policyholders' funds will mean lower payouts for 1.1 million policyholders.
Norwich Union has helped itself to £83M of its surplus assets to cover a deficit in its staff pension scheme, with £182M being set aside to pay for endowment and pension mis-selling.
To run that by you again, it is making its policy holders pay for its pension failings and for its mistakes wrt selling endowment policies.
Happy with that?
Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrats’ Treasury spokesman, is quoted in The Times:
"The Financial Services Authority perpetuates rules which give preference to shareholders over policyholders and allow such appalling abuses as penalties for pensions mis-selling to be taken from policyholders' inherited estates. Companies like Norwich Union and Prudential are managing, under the cloak of complexity, to deprive their policyholders of large sums."
Norwich Union is currently involved in "testy" and "bad tempered" negotiations as to how it will split up £5BN of orphan assets (inherited estate). Needless to say, Norwich Union wants to take as much of that money for themselves as they can, they believe that their shareholders outrank their policyholders.
The fact that these orphan assets arise as a direct results of the policyholders' contributions, and not from anything that the shareholders have done, is irrelevant to Norwich Union.
Why are they treating their policyholders with such contempt?
Simple, because they can!
They know that their policyholders lack the legal and vocal clout of their shareholders.
It is high time that the policyholders gave companies such as Norwich Union a very bloody nose, a class action should be initiated by the policyholders of Norwich Union and the life assurance companies given a lesson not to treat their policyholders with such contempt.
The trouble with some of the life assurance companies that are "managing" this country's useless and underperforming endowment policies, is that they can't seem to distinguish between assets that belong to their hapless and much put upon policy holders and the company's assets.
Normally, this "confusion" over ownership is demonstrated by the excessive and unjustified management charges levied by life assurers against the minuscule returns of the endowment policies that they fail to manage.
However, Norwich Union have found another way to tap the assets of their hapless endowment policy holders. The Times reports that Norwich Union has helped itself to £300M of policyholders' funds, in order to plug a hole in its own pension fund and to pay for its own mis-selling costs.
Some would argue that it is pretty rich of Norwich Union to help themselves in this manner, in fact most people with any concept of ownership and property would argue this. However, Norwich Union is unabashed; safe in the knowledge that it can do this, because it can do this.
If only life were that simple and profitable for its policy holders!
Needless to say this raid on the policyholders' funds will mean lower payouts for 1.1 million policyholders.
Norwich Union has helped itself to £83M of its surplus assets to cover a deficit in its staff pension scheme, with £182M being set aside to pay for endowment and pension mis-selling.
To run that by you again, it is making its policy holders pay for its pension failings and for its mistakes wrt selling endowment policies.
Happy with that?
Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrats’ Treasury spokesman, is quoted in The Times:
"The Financial Services Authority perpetuates rules which give preference to shareholders over policyholders and allow such appalling abuses as penalties for pensions mis-selling to be taken from policyholders' inherited estates. Companies like Norwich Union and Prudential are managing, under the cloak of complexity, to deprive their policyholders of large sums."
Norwich Union is currently involved in "testy" and "bad tempered" negotiations as to how it will split up £5BN of orphan assets (inherited estate). Needless to say, Norwich Union wants to take as much of that money for themselves as they can, they believe that their shareholders outrank their policyholders.
The fact that these orphan assets arise as a direct results of the policyholders' contributions, and not from anything that the shareholders have done, is irrelevant to Norwich Union.
Why are they treating their policyholders with such contempt?
Simple, because they can!
They know that their policyholders lack the legal and vocal clout of their shareholders.
It is high time that the policyholders gave companies such as Norwich Union a very bloody nose, a class action should be initiated by the policyholders of Norwich Union and the life assurance companies given a lesson not to treat their policyholders with such contempt.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Good News From The Pru
Good News From The Pru
Those of you with endowment policies, managed by the Prudential, have something to celebrate.
They have announced a 20% return on their with-profits fund, after increasing the equity backing of the £83BN fund from 64% to 74%.
The rise of 17%, after tax, has been passed on to their customers.
Endowment policies rose by over 16%, and maturing policy pay-outs were higher than a year ago.
Ned Cazalet, an industry commentator, said that the performance was "head and shoulders above everybody else a 45% cumulative return over the last six years compared to an average of 20% for the rest".
During 2005, whilst the Pru was adding to its equity backing (equities plus property), Standard Life (for example) was reducing the equity backing of its fund from 50% to 45%.
Standard Life then went on to whine and bleat earlier this month that the reason for their dismal performance was because the FTSE-100 had fallen from 6930 six years ago. Had they been more flexible and better organised they could have taken advantage of the rising market, just as the Pru did.
Almost all of the Prudential's maturing endowments paid off their mortgages last year, and the number of "red" policies off track has dropped from 65% to 16%.
How many other endowments can claim that?
This good performance by the Pru raises some very uncomfortable issues for many of the other life assurance companies, that have been performing dismally:
Those of you with endowment policies, managed by the Prudential, have something to celebrate.
They have announced a 20% return on their with-profits fund, after increasing the equity backing of the £83BN fund from 64% to 74%.
The rise of 17%, after tax, has been passed on to their customers.
Endowment policies rose by over 16%, and maturing policy pay-outs were higher than a year ago.
Ned Cazalet, an industry commentator, said that the performance was "head and shoulders above everybody else a 45% cumulative return over the last six years compared to an average of 20% for the rest".
During 2005, whilst the Pru was adding to its equity backing (equities plus property), Standard Life (for example) was reducing the equity backing of its fund from 50% to 45%.
Standard Life then went on to whine and bleat earlier this month that the reason for their dismal performance was because the FTSE-100 had fallen from 6930 six years ago. Had they been more flexible and better organised they could have taken advantage of the rising market, just as the Pru did.
Almost all of the Prudential's maturing endowments paid off their mortgages last year, and the number of "red" policies off track has dropped from 65% to 16%.
How many other endowments can claim that?
This good performance by the Pru raises some very uncomfortable issues for many of the other life assurance companies, that have been performing dismally:
- Why have many of the others performed so badly?
- Why do they continue to blame the markets, when it is clear that it is the management of these funds that is to blame?
- Why do they continue to pay their senior staff bonuses, when their policies are failing their customers?
- Why do they make "management" charges on these failing and useless endowment policies, when they are clearly not capable of running them effectively?
Monday, November 07, 2005
98% To Experience Endowment Shortfall
98% To Experience Endowment Shortfall
The Times reports that Ned Cazalet, of Cazalet Consulting the independent analyst, predicts that about 98% of the 2.7M households with endowment mortgages will suffer a shortfall.
He believes that many companies are still understating the size of the problem, because they are basing projections on an "unrealistic" 6% growth rate.
He notes that the life assurance companies "make a thing of the fact that many policies maturing today are on target, but these policies are only a handful of the total..".
98%?
That's a lot of very unhappy people.
Surely that's a large enough number of people, to make it worthwhile to get together in a class action against the life assurance companies?
The Times reports that Ned Cazalet, of Cazalet Consulting the independent analyst, predicts that about 98% of the 2.7M households with endowment mortgages will suffer a shortfall.
He believes that many companies are still understating the size of the problem, because they are basing projections on an "unrealistic" 6% growth rate.
He notes that the life assurance companies "make a thing of the fact that many policies maturing today are on target, but these policies are only a handful of the total..".
98%?
That's a lot of very unhappy people.
Surely that's a large enough number of people, to make it worthwhile to get together in a class action against the life assurance companies?
Monday, July 04, 2005
Time To Sue
Time To Sue
It seems that the life assurance industry is guilty of a "being economical with the truth" in trying to persuade their hapless policy holders that once the time bar is down, they have no further rights to claim compensation.
The Observer reports that endowment policy holders still have the right to sue the life assurance companies in the courts.
Not surprisingly the life assurance industry, the same people who sold and mis-managed these useless products, is reluctant to remind people of their rights to sue.
Lawyer Adam Samuel, formerly the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman, is quoted as saying:
"If anyone took one of these cases to court, the consumer would very probably win. The industry is terrified of this."
The life assurance industry is loath to allow a legal precedent to be set, that could cost billions.
As I have repeated many times on this site, what is actually needed is for there to be a class action taken by the 8 million holders of these useless, underperforming, products.
That will be the most efficient, and effective, method of ensuring that the life assurance industry addresses the failure and mismanagement of these products.
It seems that the life assurance industry is guilty of a "being economical with the truth" in trying to persuade their hapless policy holders that once the time bar is down, they have no further rights to claim compensation.
The Observer reports that endowment policy holders still have the right to sue the life assurance companies in the courts.
Not surprisingly the life assurance industry, the same people who sold and mis-managed these useless products, is reluctant to remind people of their rights to sue.
Lawyer Adam Samuel, formerly the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman, is quoted as saying:
"If anyone took one of these cases to court, the consumer would very probably win. The industry is terrified of this."
The life assurance industry is loath to allow a legal precedent to be set, that could cost billions.
As I have repeated many times on this site, what is actually needed is for there to be a class action taken by the 8 million holders of these useless, underperforming, products.
That will be the most efficient, and effective, method of ensuring that the life assurance industry addresses the failure and mismanagement of these products.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Scottish Test Case
Scottish Test Case
The Herald reports that a Glasgow financial advisory firm is planning a legal test case, on behalf of nearly 100 clients allegedly mis-sold endowment policies by Scottish solicitors.
Macarthur Denton Asset Management accused lawyers of a "disgraceful" failure to fulfill their professional responsibilities, alleging that they have "collectively shrugged their shoulders" when pressed for compensation.
I personally believe that the best way forward, for the 8 million of us who hold these useless and underperforming policies, is for there to be a class action.
The Herald reports that a Glasgow financial advisory firm is planning a legal test case, on behalf of nearly 100 clients allegedly mis-sold endowment policies by Scottish solicitors.
Macarthur Denton Asset Management accused lawyers of a "disgraceful" failure to fulfill their professional responsibilities, alleging that they have "collectively shrugged their shoulders" when pressed for compensation.
I personally believe that the best way forward, for the 8 million of us who hold these useless and underperforming policies, is for there to be a class action.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
I sent the following email to Milberg Weiss (the American legal firm), dipping a toe in the water to see if they can help wrt a class action.
"....I wish to ask about the possibility of taking a class action, in respect of mis-sold endowment policies in the UK during the eigthies and nineties.
During this period these products were created by life assurance companies, to be used as repayment vehicles for 25 year mortgages.
80% of mortgages in the UK used these policies at this time.
They were "hard sold" offering not just full repayment fo the mortgage, but also a tax free profit at the end of the term.
The reality is different, they are underperforming; it is expected that 6 million people will be hit by a shortfall, which is expected to total £40 billion over the next 10 years.
The life assurance companies are doing everything possible to avoid liability. They state that they were investments, and as such there was always a risk that they would fall.
The reality was that they were sold as products, like TV's or cars. There was little or no mention of risks, and the inference was that there would be no loss.
When you buy a TV or car that is not "fit for purpose" you are entitled to compensation. The same should apply here.
I have been trying to claim compensation since Sept 2002, and have kept an on line diary of my efforts "The Endowment Diary" on my website.
Are you able to help, or do you know any firm that can help?
Thanks.
Kind regards.."
"....I wish to ask about the possibility of taking a class action, in respect of mis-sold endowment policies in the UK during the eigthies and nineties.
During this period these products were created by life assurance companies, to be used as repayment vehicles for 25 year mortgages.
80% of mortgages in the UK used these policies at this time.
They were "hard sold" offering not just full repayment fo the mortgage, but also a tax free profit at the end of the term.
The reality is different, they are underperforming; it is expected that 6 million people will be hit by a shortfall, which is expected to total £40 billion over the next 10 years.
The life assurance companies are doing everything possible to avoid liability. They state that they were investments, and as such there was always a risk that they would fall.
The reality was that they were sold as products, like TV's or cars. There was little or no mention of risks, and the inference was that there would be no loss.
When you buy a TV or car that is not "fit for purpose" you are entitled to compensation. The same should apply here.
I have been trying to claim compensation since Sept 2002, and have kept an on line diary of my efforts "The Endowment Diary" on my website.
Are you able to help, or do you know any firm that can help?
Thanks.
Kind regards.."
Friday, March 19, 2004
I received a call from the complaints company handling my claim for the mis-selling of my second endowment policy.
In short, they cannot handle a claim that has already been rejected by the Financial Ombudsman Service.
In view of this, I would therefore question the rationale of anyone using these claims companies.
Presenting a claim to the companies that sold these polices, and then to the Ombudsman is free. However, if you use a claims company they will charge 20-30% of your compensation if they succeed.
To my view, the only reason to use these claims companies is if you have exhausted all other “zero cost” avenues of complaint. However, they do not seem to wish to pursue cases that have already been rejected.
Therefore, in my opinion, they add no value.
That being said, I did discuss the general situation regarding compensation with them. It seems that, in their view, the companies that sold these under performing products are becoming increasingly rigid in their interpretation of what constitutes a justifiable claim.
The claim company was of the opinion that the endowment providers are doing everything possible to avoid paying compensation. My own experiences, and the letters that I have received from fellow policy holders, seem to endorse this view.
I do not regard this as the end of the line in respect of my claim for the mis-selling of my second endowment. I have some other avenues that I intend to explore.
One being, and this no doubt sounds “barking mad”, is to consider the possibility of pursuing a class action via the USA.
No I have not gone mad; the European creditors of Parmalat (the Italian diary company that is Europe’s Enron - please see my article in “In Your Face” entitled “Parmalat Europe’s Enron”) are pursuing a class action against Parmalat Italy, using Milberg Weiss an American legal firm.
My view is that if the creditors of Parmalat can do this; then the 6 million policyholders, who face a £40BN shortfall, ought to be able to do it as well.
My research into the viability of pursuing this may take some time, I am of course happy to hear from anyone who has already taken this route.
In short, they cannot handle a claim that has already been rejected by the Financial Ombudsman Service.
In view of this, I would therefore question the rationale of anyone using these claims companies.
Presenting a claim to the companies that sold these polices, and then to the Ombudsman is free. However, if you use a claims company they will charge 20-30% of your compensation if they succeed.
To my view, the only reason to use these claims companies is if you have exhausted all other “zero cost” avenues of complaint. However, they do not seem to wish to pursue cases that have already been rejected.
Therefore, in my opinion, they add no value.
That being said, I did discuss the general situation regarding compensation with them. It seems that, in their view, the companies that sold these under performing products are becoming increasingly rigid in their interpretation of what constitutes a justifiable claim.
The claim company was of the opinion that the endowment providers are doing everything possible to avoid paying compensation. My own experiences, and the letters that I have received from fellow policy holders, seem to endorse this view.
I do not regard this as the end of the line in respect of my claim for the mis-selling of my second endowment. I have some other avenues that I intend to explore.
One being, and this no doubt sounds “barking mad”, is to consider the possibility of pursuing a class action via the USA.
No I have not gone mad; the European creditors of Parmalat (the Italian diary company that is Europe’s Enron - please see my article in “In Your Face” entitled “Parmalat Europe’s Enron”) are pursuing a class action against Parmalat Italy, using Milberg Weiss an American legal firm.
My view is that if the creditors of Parmalat can do this; then the 6 million policyholders, who face a £40BN shortfall, ought to be able to do it as well.
My research into the viability of pursuing this may take some time, I am of course happy to hear from anyone who has already taken this route.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)