Time Bar Pays Dividends
Life assurance group Chesnara, the holding company for Countrywide Assured plc and City of Westminster Assurance Company Limited, has benefited from the time bar on making mortgage endowment complaints for mis-selling.
Its results for 2007 have improved.
Figures show that pre-tax profits rose 11% to £27.7M in 2007 from £25M in 2006. The significant reduction in endowment complaints allowed for a provision release of £2.8M.
Chesnara Chairman, Christopher Sporborg, said:
"Our recent experience of mortgage endowment mis-selling complaints has been generally positive. The number of complaints has reduced significantly and an increasing proportion of those received are time-barred in line with FSA rules, while uphold rates on those complaints which are not time-barred have increased.
Although we do not believe that this issue has fully run its course, we do feel able, however, whilst maintaining an element of conservatism, to reduce our redress provisions, by £2.8 million, based on our revised expectation of future complaint activity."
It's nice to see that someone can make money out this mess.
Showing posts with label time bar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label time bar. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Time Bar Challenge
Time Bar Challenge
BrunelFranklin.com and CPH Financial Service have launched a legal challenge against the practice of endowment providers using a timebar to prevent claims being made for underperforming endowment policies.
Brunel and CPH have made a request for a judicial review, to establish if setting a time frame in which a complaint must be registered is fair and legal.
At present, endowment providers can "time bar" a complaint if the consumer makes the claim more than three years after they first receive a letter warning them of a "high risk" of shortfall on their policy.
Firms must also send out a "red letter" six months before the deadline, informing the consumer of the impending date.
It is estimated that the number of people affected by time barring exceeds 2 million.
Ian Allison, corporate relations director at BrunelFranklin.com, said:
"This is a very exciting day for us all.
We have been aggressively lobbying against time bars for three years and we are now reaching a point where there is a serious chance of a positive outcome for all those people who have been time barred.
We have always believed the time bar process and the communications with consumers was wrong and fundamentally flawed.
Many customers never received shortfall letters. For those that did, the letters never mentioned the issue of a mis-sale.
The use of these letters therefore to legally start the time bar clock ticking is a disgrace. This was never fair and we believe a judicial review will find in favour of the consumer."
I wish them well with their challenge. The fact remains that the insurance companies will do whatever they can, to avoid taking responsibility for the endowment mortage scandal.
BrunelFranklin.com and CPH Financial Service have launched a legal challenge against the practice of endowment providers using a timebar to prevent claims being made for underperforming endowment policies.
Brunel and CPH have made a request for a judicial review, to establish if setting a time frame in which a complaint must be registered is fair and legal.
At present, endowment providers can "time bar" a complaint if the consumer makes the claim more than three years after they first receive a letter warning them of a "high risk" of shortfall on their policy.
Firms must also send out a "red letter" six months before the deadline, informing the consumer of the impending date.
It is estimated that the number of people affected by time barring exceeds 2 million.
Ian Allison, corporate relations director at BrunelFranklin.com, said:
"This is a very exciting day for us all.
We have been aggressively lobbying against time bars for three years and we are now reaching a point where there is a serious chance of a positive outcome for all those people who have been time barred.
We have always believed the time bar process and the communications with consumers was wrong and fundamentally flawed.
Many customers never received shortfall letters. For those that did, the letters never mentioned the issue of a mis-sale.
The use of these letters therefore to legally start the time bar clock ticking is a disgrace. This was never fair and we believe a judicial review will find in favour of the consumer."
I wish them well with their challenge. The fact remains that the insurance companies will do whatever they can, to avoid taking responsibility for the endowment mortage scandal.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Friends Provident In The Wrong
Friends Provident In The Wrong
In a rare piece of good news, it seems that the thousands of endowment policy holders who have been told that they have run out of time to complain about their useless and underperforming mortgage endowment policies have been offered some hope of compensation.
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has ruled that Friends Provident was wrong to impose a time limit on an endowment misselling complaint bought by a Mr and Mrs Smith, and has ordered the insurer to reopen their case.
The Smiths are physically disabled, and that has impacted the decisions of the FOS. However, endowment claims and legal specialists reportedly believe that this judgement could impact on all policyholders who have been time barred.
Tim Moore, of EndowmentClaims.com, said:
"This ruling suggests that if policyholders can prove that they were too confused, for whatever reason, to make accurate financial choices that the time bar may be invalid."
Under FSA rules, endowment policyholders who want to complain must do so within three years of receiving a "red" warning letter.
The FOS ruled that the Smiths were too confused to make an accurate decision about their mortgage options, as such the time bar was invalid.
The ombudsman is quoted as saying:
"I take the fact that Mr and Mrs Smith are unable to work as a good indication they may find coping with day to day normal life a challenge, and consider their circumstances are exceptional for the purposes of the mortgage endowment time bar rules."
A "coalition" of endowment claims experts including; Donns Solicitors, Endowmentclaims.com, CPH Financial Advisory Services, Whitehall Randall, and Michael Booth QC is reportedly ready to test whether it can be applied to all policyholders, not just the disabled.
Andrew Hummersone, from Whitehall Randall, said:
"In light of this ruling, our next step will be to send another 10 time barred cases to the FOS.
The minute a claim is rejected we will immediately seek a High Court review, with the aim of confirming once and for all whether time bars have any validity."
As ever with the endowment scandal, the lawyers and claim firms will do very well out of it.
However, as I keep repeating, the best way for all of the parties involved in this disgrace would be for the life assurance companies to do the decent thing and bite the bullet of underwriting these useless underperforming policies.
In a rare piece of good news, it seems that the thousands of endowment policy holders who have been told that they have run out of time to complain about their useless and underperforming mortgage endowment policies have been offered some hope of compensation.
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has ruled that Friends Provident was wrong to impose a time limit on an endowment misselling complaint bought by a Mr and Mrs Smith, and has ordered the insurer to reopen their case.
The Smiths are physically disabled, and that has impacted the decisions of the FOS. However, endowment claims and legal specialists reportedly believe that this judgement could impact on all policyholders who have been time barred.
Tim Moore, of EndowmentClaims.com, said:
"This ruling suggests that if policyholders can prove that they were too confused, for whatever reason, to make accurate financial choices that the time bar may be invalid."
Under FSA rules, endowment policyholders who want to complain must do so within three years of receiving a "red" warning letter.
The FOS ruled that the Smiths were too confused to make an accurate decision about their mortgage options, as such the time bar was invalid.
The ombudsman is quoted as saying:
"I take the fact that Mr and Mrs Smith are unable to work as a good indication they may find coping with day to day normal life a challenge, and consider their circumstances are exceptional for the purposes of the mortgage endowment time bar rules."
A "coalition" of endowment claims experts including; Donns Solicitors, Endowmentclaims.com, CPH Financial Advisory Services, Whitehall Randall, and Michael Booth QC is reportedly ready to test whether it can be applied to all policyholders, not just the disabled.
Andrew Hummersone, from Whitehall Randall, said:
"In light of this ruling, our next step will be to send another 10 time barred cases to the FOS.
The minute a claim is rejected we will immediately seek a High Court review, with the aim of confirming once and for all whether time bars have any validity."
As ever with the endowment scandal, the lawyers and claim firms will do very well out of it.
However, as I keep repeating, the best way for all of the parties involved in this disgrace would be for the life assurance companies to do the decent thing and bite the bullet of underwriting these useless underperforming policies.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Time Bar Challenge
Time Bar Challenge
It is reported that Brunel Franklin, an endowment claims specialist, has raised a legal challenge to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service over time bars on endowment mortgage complaints.
Brunel Franklin believe that the policy is "inconsistent", and hope to change the current time bar deadline for endowment policy holders to make a complaint.
The FSA rules sate that insurers are within their rights to impose a deadline, but that this must be three years from the date the policyholder received a 'red' letter warning of a potential shortfall.
It is estimated that one million people have already been time barred to date.
Brunel Franklin claim that the red letters were misleading and did not state all the facts.
Claims director Ian Allison is quoted:
"Many did not explain to policyholders that their endowment may have been mis-sold and that they had the right to complain about its sale.
As such, a policyholder could not reasonably have expected to know that they were mis-sold the endowment or what to do about it."
All of this could be so easily resolved, if the life assurance companies underwrote these useless underperforming policies.
It is reported that Brunel Franklin, an endowment claims specialist, has raised a legal challenge to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service over time bars on endowment mortgage complaints.
Brunel Franklin believe that the policy is "inconsistent", and hope to change the current time bar deadline for endowment policy holders to make a complaint.
The FSA rules sate that insurers are within their rights to impose a deadline, but that this must be three years from the date the policyholder received a 'red' letter warning of a potential shortfall.
It is estimated that one million people have already been time barred to date.
Brunel Franklin claim that the red letters were misleading and did not state all the facts.
Claims director Ian Allison is quoted:
"Many did not explain to policyholders that their endowment may have been mis-sold and that they had the right to complain about its sale.
As such, a policyholder could not reasonably have expected to know that they were mis-sold the endowment or what to do about it."
All of this could be so easily resolved, if the life assurance companies underwrote these useless underperforming policies.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Prudential Time Bar
Prudential Time Bar
The Prudential is, according to the Association of British Insurers (ABI), the last major life assurance company to introduce time bars to their endowment policy holders wishing to complain about shortfalls on their endowment policies.
The ABI last year estimated that around 2.7 million households in Britain have an endowment policy that is needed to pay off all or part of a mortgage, and that over 80% face a shortfall.
ABI spokesman Malcolm Tarling said that:
"Time-barring will help focus people's minds. The longer people wait to file a legitimate complaint, the harder it is to establish the facts."
The Prudential says that it will write to 110,000 customers to tell them about the new, six-month deadline for complaints.
Legal & General and Nationwide Building Society have also introduced time barring in the last two months.
Not surprisingly the insurance companies want to bring the matter to a close, as they are the ones who are being hit by the claims from their endowment policy holders.
This sorry pathetic mess could be sorted out at the stroke of a pen, if the insurance companies acted responsibly and underwrote these useless underperforming products which they foisted on the British public back in the 1980's.
The Prudential is, according to the Association of British Insurers (ABI), the last major life assurance company to introduce time bars to their endowment policy holders wishing to complain about shortfalls on their endowment policies.
The ABI last year estimated that around 2.7 million households in Britain have an endowment policy that is needed to pay off all or part of a mortgage, and that over 80% face a shortfall.
ABI spokesman Malcolm Tarling said that:
"Time-barring will help focus people's minds. The longer people wait to file a legitimate complaint, the harder it is to establish the facts."
The Prudential says that it will write to 110,000 customers to tell them about the new, six-month deadline for complaints.
Legal & General and Nationwide Building Society have also introduced time barring in the last two months.
Not surprisingly the insurance companies want to bring the matter to a close, as they are the ones who are being hit by the claims from their endowment policy holders.
This sorry pathetic mess could be sorted out at the stroke of a pen, if the insurance companies acted responsibly and underwrote these useless underperforming products which they foisted on the British public back in the 1980's.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
The Policyholders Fight Back
The Policyholders Fight Back
Congratulations to Vincent Cunningham, who has succeeded in taking his life assurance company to court and winning compensation from them for their underperforming product.
This is reportedly the first case of its kind.
Cunningham has successfully sued Friends Provident for compensation on the shortfall on his policy, even though he failed to make a claim within three years of receiving a 'red warning letter' notifying him of a potential shortfall.
He was awarded £1500 by Reigate county court.
It should be noted that the case does not set a legal precedent, because it was heard in a county court. However, it could have implications for the thousands of hapless endowment policy holders who have been told they had run out of time to make a claim against their endowment providers.
As such, the case may encourage others to take a stand against the life assurance companies who are trying to impose their own time bar.
Where one leads, others will follow!
Here is the judge's ruling Vincent Cunnignham vs Friends Provident.
Congratulations to Vincent Cunningham, who has succeeded in taking his life assurance company to court and winning compensation from them for their underperforming product.
This is reportedly the first case of its kind.
Cunningham has successfully sued Friends Provident for compensation on the shortfall on his policy, even though he failed to make a claim within three years of receiving a 'red warning letter' notifying him of a potential shortfall.
He was awarded £1500 by Reigate county court.
It should be noted that the case does not set a legal precedent, because it was heard in a county court. However, it could have implications for the thousands of hapless endowment policy holders who have been told they had run out of time to make a claim against their endowment providers.
As such, the case may encourage others to take a stand against the life assurance companies who are trying to impose their own time bar.
Where one leads, others will follow!
Here is the judge's ruling Vincent Cunnignham vs Friends Provident.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Legal & General U Turn
Legal & General U Turn
Legal & General have announced that they will tell over 600,000 endowment policyholders that they have only six more months to claim compensation, if they believe they were mis-sold the products.
Up until now, L&G now had been one of the few large endowment policy providers to rule out "time-barring" customers.
L&G has started to send out letters to their policy holders this week, covering the new time bar rule and informing the policy holders about their projected returns/shortfalls on polices.
Only Prudential and Nationwide Building Society are keeping an open commitment to consider complaints.
The clock is ticking.
Legal & General have announced that they will tell over 600,000 endowment policyholders that they have only six more months to claim compensation, if they believe they were mis-sold the products.
Up until now, L&G now had been one of the few large endowment policy providers to rule out "time-barring" customers.
L&G has started to send out letters to their policy holders this week, covering the new time bar rule and informing the policy holders about their projected returns/shortfalls on polices.
Only Prudential and Nationwide Building Society are keeping an open commitment to consider complaints.
The clock is ticking.
Monday, July 11, 2005
The Can of Worms
The Can of Worms
It seems that the "dear old" life assurance companies, who manage the underperforming and useless endowment polices that are held by over 8 million people, are not content with the damage that these products have done to their reputations.
As if to further dig the knife deeper into this self inflicted wound, some of them are not spelling out clearly enough the time bar deadline on their "red warning letters".
That is at least the view of solicitors Beresfords, from Doncaster, who say that many "red letters" are failing to give adequate warning to policy holders about the time deadline for complaining.
Beresfords is preparing a report on the time limit issue to send to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), and the insurers which sold endowments. They state that up to half of the red warning letters do not identify the deadline.
Martin Ryan, the firm's compliance and regulation officer, is quoted as saying:
"In 50 per cent of cases there don't appear to be valid time bars..There seem to have been a lot of incorrect red letters going out - specifically not drawing the attention of the client to take action or setting no date by which action had to be taken."
Some insurers, ever mindful of their obligations to themselves, are using time bars as a blanket reason not to examine complaints sent to them.
The FSA will hold a meeting of industry bodies, this Friday, to discuss proposals on endowment compensation. It is expected to present research on how claims have been handled, which is believed to cast financial advisers and insurers in a poor light.
It is very clear that the life assurance industry is "closing ranks" on this issue, and will do everything it can to avoid facing the unpalatable truth that it has sold a product that was not fit for purpose.
Endowment polices, that are meant to pay off mortgages, do not work.
It is as simple as that.
As such the life assurance companies should underwrite them.
The life assurance companies whilst trying to bury their heads, and the heads of their policy holders, in the sand over this disgrace will face rather rude shock.
Raymond Donn, senior partner of law firm Donns in Manchester, is quoted as saying:
"We intend to challenge the time bars when the insurance companies start invoking them next year. A lot of people who have mortgages don't know if there is going to be a shortfall."
Martin Ryan, of Beresfords, believes that the industry will try to avoid precedents being set in court.
"At the moment we are talking of industry-imposed time bars..But if a judge got into it, a can of worms could open up for the industry. It would be the first time a judge ran the rule over it. And the industry could find that, in some areas, they might not be able to use time bars at all."
The life assurance industry is learning, whether it likes it or not, that reputations are hard to earn, but easy to squander.
It seems that the "dear old" life assurance companies, who manage the underperforming and useless endowment polices that are held by over 8 million people, are not content with the damage that these products have done to their reputations.
As if to further dig the knife deeper into this self inflicted wound, some of them are not spelling out clearly enough the time bar deadline on their "red warning letters".
That is at least the view of solicitors Beresfords, from Doncaster, who say that many "red letters" are failing to give adequate warning to policy holders about the time deadline for complaining.
Beresfords is preparing a report on the time limit issue to send to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), and the insurers which sold endowments. They state that up to half of the red warning letters do not identify the deadline.
Martin Ryan, the firm's compliance and regulation officer, is quoted as saying:
"In 50 per cent of cases there don't appear to be valid time bars..There seem to have been a lot of incorrect red letters going out - specifically not drawing the attention of the client to take action or setting no date by which action had to be taken."
Some insurers, ever mindful of their obligations to themselves, are using time bars as a blanket reason not to examine complaints sent to them.
The FSA will hold a meeting of industry bodies, this Friday, to discuss proposals on endowment compensation. It is expected to present research on how claims have been handled, which is believed to cast financial advisers and insurers in a poor light.
It is very clear that the life assurance industry is "closing ranks" on this issue, and will do everything it can to avoid facing the unpalatable truth that it has sold a product that was not fit for purpose.
Endowment polices, that are meant to pay off mortgages, do not work.
It is as simple as that.
As such the life assurance companies should underwrite them.
The life assurance companies whilst trying to bury their heads, and the heads of their policy holders, in the sand over this disgrace will face rather rude shock.
Raymond Donn, senior partner of law firm Donns in Manchester, is quoted as saying:
"We intend to challenge the time bars when the insurance companies start invoking them next year. A lot of people who have mortgages don't know if there is going to be a shortfall."
Martin Ryan, of Beresfords, believes that the industry will try to avoid precedents being set in court.
"At the moment we are talking of industry-imposed time bars..But if a judge got into it, a can of worms could open up for the industry. It would be the first time a judge ran the rule over it. And the industry could find that, in some areas, they might not be able to use time bars at all."
The life assurance industry is learning, whether it likes it or not, that reputations are hard to earn, but easy to squander.
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.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Time Bar To Bring Chaos
Time Bar To Bring Chaos
Life assurance companies, who sold underperforming and useless endowment policies to 8 million home owners, are using a number of methods to reduce the claims being made against them for compensation.
One such method is the time bar, whereby claimants are given a deadline to complain or lose their right to do so for ever.
This neat little trick is allowed by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), which said that an insurer may disregard a case for mis-selling three years after a policyholder receives the first "red" letter warning that an endowment has a high risk of not meeting its target.
Needless to say, there is now a deluge of complaints swamping the system.
Many hundreds of thousands of red letters were sent out in early 2003, this means that the deadline is now fast approaching for these people to make a claim.
The deluge has been further exacerbated by the fact that the FSA has told the life assurance companies that they must remind people 6 months before the final deadline, as to their right to make a claim.
Needless to say the life assurance companies and the Ombudsman will be hard pressed to cope with this deluge of complaints.
It has taken me over two years to reach the final stage of my claims which, for the record, were both rejected.
Simply put, the system can't cope!
This problem is exacerbated by the fact that, according to Chief Ombudsman Walter Merricks, 45% of endowment mis-selling cases were upheld by his office after being turned down by life companies.
These companies are reportedly issuing time bars:
Norwich Union - it has 1M endowment policyholders. It began warning of a time bar last October, giving 12 months' notice.
Standard Life - it has 1.2M endowment policyholders. It will write to customers in coming weeks to remind them about its deadline, giving 12 months' notice.
Royal & SunAlliance - it has 450K policyholders. It began reminding policyholders about time-barring last May and gives policyholders six months to complain after a second red warning letter.
Allied Dunbar/Eagle Star - it has 100K policyholders. Policyholders have 12 months to complain after receiving second letter.
Friends Provident - it has 450K policyholders. They have imposed a three-year time bar after policyholders receive their first red letter.
Pearl/NPI/London Life - it has 100K policyholders. Time barring applies three years after the first red letter.
Axa - it has 160K endowment policyholders. It introduced time-barring last month and is writing to customers giving 12 months' notice.
Scottish Widows - it has 165K endowment policyholders. It introduced time-barring in February, giving customers 12 months to complain after receiving their second red letter.
Good luck!
Life assurance companies, who sold underperforming and useless endowment policies to 8 million home owners, are using a number of methods to reduce the claims being made against them for compensation.
One such method is the time bar, whereby claimants are given a deadline to complain or lose their right to do so for ever.
This neat little trick is allowed by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), which said that an insurer may disregard a case for mis-selling three years after a policyholder receives the first "red" letter warning that an endowment has a high risk of not meeting its target.
Needless to say, there is now a deluge of complaints swamping the system.
Many hundreds of thousands of red letters were sent out in early 2003, this means that the deadline is now fast approaching for these people to make a claim.
The deluge has been further exacerbated by the fact that the FSA has told the life assurance companies that they must remind people 6 months before the final deadline, as to their right to make a claim.
Needless to say the life assurance companies and the Ombudsman will be hard pressed to cope with this deluge of complaints.
It has taken me over two years to reach the final stage of my claims which, for the record, were both rejected.
Simply put, the system can't cope!
This problem is exacerbated by the fact that, according to Chief Ombudsman Walter Merricks, 45% of endowment mis-selling cases were upheld by his office after being turned down by life companies.
These companies are reportedly issuing time bars:
Norwich Union - it has 1M endowment policyholders. It began warning of a time bar last October, giving 12 months' notice.
Standard Life - it has 1.2M endowment policyholders. It will write to customers in coming weeks to remind them about its deadline, giving 12 months' notice.
Royal & SunAlliance - it has 450K policyholders. It began reminding policyholders about time-barring last May and gives policyholders six months to complain after a second red warning letter.
Allied Dunbar/Eagle Star - it has 100K policyholders. Policyholders have 12 months to complain after receiving second letter.
Friends Provident - it has 450K policyholders. They have imposed a three-year time bar after policyholders receive their first red letter.
Pearl/NPI/London Life - it has 100K policyholders. Time barring applies three years after the first red letter.
Axa - it has 160K endowment policyholders. It introduced time-barring last month and is writing to customers giving 12 months' notice.
Scottish Widows - it has 165K endowment policyholders. It introduced time-barring in February, giving customers 12 months to complain after receiving their second red letter.
Good luck!
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Tick Tock
Tick Tock
Time is running out for the hapless holders of underperforming, and useless, endowment mortgages to complain over mis-selling.
The life assurance companies will be writing to their policy holders in the coming months, warning them that they have a limited length of time left to complain.
After that, tough luck!
It is reported that Standard Life and Lloyds TSB will shortly be starting their mail shot about this issue.
Norwich Union, will be writing to its 1.1m endowment policy holders in March, reversing its earlier commitment not to impose a time bar.
How nice of them!
Friends Provident and Zurich will also be writing to their policy holders.
Some will allow 6 months to complain, others 12.
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) rules give policyholders three years to complain, after the arrival of an initial letter warning that an endowment has underperformed.
Out of the large firms, only Legal & General and Prudential have not imposed time limits on complaints.
Time is running out for the hapless holders of underperforming, and useless, endowment mortgages to complain over mis-selling.
The life assurance companies will be writing to their policy holders in the coming months, warning them that they have a limited length of time left to complain.
After that, tough luck!
It is reported that Standard Life and Lloyds TSB will shortly be starting their mail shot about this issue.
Norwich Union, will be writing to its 1.1m endowment policy holders in March, reversing its earlier commitment not to impose a time bar.
How nice of them!
Friends Provident and Zurich will also be writing to their policy holders.
Some will allow 6 months to complain, others 12.
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) rules give policyholders three years to complain, after the arrival of an initial letter warning that an endowment has underperformed.
Out of the large firms, only Legal & General and Prudential have not imposed time limits on complaints.
Monday, December 20, 2004
Trouble Ahead
It is reported that the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has warned that it won't be unable to cope with the mortgage endowment complaints, next year; as there is expected to be steep rise in these complaints.
The rise in endowment complaints is expected, because the large life assurance companies will be sending out letters in the New Year to their policyholders; these will warn them about the 3 year time-bar rule.
Policyholders have 3 years from receipt of the first warning letter to complain.
The FOS is now getting fed up with endowment providers, who are disregarding complaint handling guidelines.
"..Some firms are systematically rejecting swathes of complaints with little or no investigation..."
It is reported that Halifax and Abbey National are among the names passed on to the FSA, by the FOS, in respect of shortcomings on complaint handling.
The FOS wants steps taken to force providers to settle cases themselves.
It is reported that the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has warned that it won't be unable to cope with the mortgage endowment complaints, next year; as there is expected to be steep rise in these complaints.
The rise in endowment complaints is expected, because the large life assurance companies will be sending out letters in the New Year to their policyholders; these will warn them about the 3 year time-bar rule.
Policyholders have 3 years from receipt of the first warning letter to complain.
The FOS is now getting fed up with endowment providers, who are disregarding complaint handling guidelines.
"..Some firms are systematically rejecting swathes of complaints with little or no investigation..."
It is reported that Halifax and Abbey National are among the names passed on to the FSA, by the FOS, in respect of shortcomings on complaint handling.
The FOS wants steps taken to force providers to settle cases themselves.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Saturday, July 24, 2004
It seems that the Nationwide Building Society has a had a change of heart; regarding its treatment of people who have complained about mis-sold endowment polices, after the three year deadline.
The Treasury Select Committee, investigating the mis-selling of endowment policies, made it clear a month ago that the time bar rule should be discarded.
However, until recently the Nationwide had been disbarring late claimants. Now, following the Treasury Committee ruling and FSA rule changes in respect of warning letters, the Nationwide are reported to be writing to everyone they have time barred offering to investigate their complaints.
The Treasury Select Committee, investigating the mis-selling of endowment policies, made it clear a month ago that the time bar rule should be discarded.
However, until recently the Nationwide had been disbarring late claimants. Now, following the Treasury Committee ruling and FSA rule changes in respect of warning letters, the Nationwide are reported to be writing to everyone they have time barred offering to investigate their complaints.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Missed The Boat
It seems that about 700000 people, out of the total of 8.5M who hold endowment policies, may have missed the deadline to lodge a complaint for mis-selling.
These figures come from the Treasury, so they are probably reasonably accurate.
The chairman of the Select Committee, John MacFall, is reported to have described the fact that so many people didn't know of the time bar as "inexcusable".
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is understood to be trying to persuade companies operating a time bar to reconsider their approach. Some of the endowment companies have agreed to waive the time bar.
The committee has also raised the issue of people sold endowment mortgages before 1988. As we all know, the ombudsman cannot consider these complaints because there was no voluntary code or scheme covering their activities before 1988.
The Select Committee is worried that this lack of action wrt pre 1988 policies will harm the reputation of the financial services industry.
I would suggest that the 8 million people facing shortfalls on their endowment policies already think that the financial services industry is pretty poor, whether the FSA deals with the complaints or not.
It seems that there are no stats available on the number of people turned away by the Ombudsman for trying to complain about pre 1988 endowments. The estimate is 1.2M, that's a lot of unhappy people!
Let's give them some stats!
Write to the Select Committee, if you were turned away because your policy was sold pre 1988.
There is a small crumb of comfort, the FSA and government are exploring options for voluntary help for people with pre 1988 policies.
However, don't hold your breath folks, that is a "cop out" in my view.
It seems that about 700000 people, out of the total of 8.5M who hold endowment policies, may have missed the deadline to lodge a complaint for mis-selling.
These figures come from the Treasury, so they are probably reasonably accurate.
The chairman of the Select Committee, John MacFall, is reported to have described the fact that so many people didn't know of the time bar as "inexcusable".
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is understood to be trying to persuade companies operating a time bar to reconsider their approach. Some of the endowment companies have agreed to waive the time bar.
The committee has also raised the issue of people sold endowment mortgages before 1988. As we all know, the ombudsman cannot consider these complaints because there was no voluntary code or scheme covering their activities before 1988.
The Select Committee is worried that this lack of action wrt pre 1988 policies will harm the reputation of the financial services industry.
I would suggest that the 8 million people facing shortfalls on their endowment policies already think that the financial services industry is pretty poor, whether the FSA deals with the complaints or not.
It seems that there are no stats available on the number of people turned away by the Ombudsman for trying to complain about pre 1988 endowments. The estimate is 1.2M, that's a lot of unhappy people!
Let's give them some stats!
Write to the Select Committee, if you were turned away because your policy was sold pre 1988.
There is a small crumb of comfort, the FSA and government are exploring options for voluntary help for people with pre 1988 policies.
However, don't hold your breath folks, that is a "cop out" in my view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)