Extract of emails sent and received today to/from a site visitor:

"...
Sorry to hear about your compensation, but at least you have more than I have got so far!

The method that is meant to be used, as I understand it, is that the ombudsman or life assurance company compare your situation if you had taken out a repayment mortgage to the endowment; then the difference, if in your favour, is the compensation.

I have heard of more than £200. The case that springs to mind is mentioned in my letter posted 2 June (to The Endowment Diary) where Lord Denning was quoted; I believe (but you will need to check with The Times) the claimant got around £3K.

As with anything to do with money please take independant legal and financial advice before making any decision.

Please keep visiting the site, and keep in touch.

....
Best regards,

Ken

Dear Ken,
I too am in the process of trying to get some redress into being missold endowment policy, how stupid was I on a repayment mortgage to be sold an endowment? A blatant case of misselling. Anyway, I am in the final stages of negotiations with the Ombudsman & have been offered a payment of £200 for 'distress & inconvenience'. No mention of compensation. Have been now worn down with it all, have you heard of any awards being made greater than this? My original claim was for £20,000! Ha ha..."

Extract of letter sent to company A today:

"...

Dear ...,

Thank you for your letter dated 15 May 2003 (ref ..), in which you reject my claim for compensation for the mis-selling of the endowment mortgage.

I have noted the contents of your letter, and have the following observations:

 You state that I omitted to complete the section in the fact find in 1991, which dealt with my investment attitude. This formed part of your own procedures at the time, the fact that it was not completed, yet A proceeded with the endowment indicates that A breached their own procedures; ie the policy was mis-sold.

 You state that I have a low attitude to risk, yet you state that there was a risk (as is evidenced by the projected shortfall) that the policy would not pay off the mortgage. This contradiction indicates that the policy was unsuitable to my risk attitude, and should not have been sold to me.

 You state that the fees and charges were not explained to me at the time, as it was not a legal requirement. Legal requirement or not, these fees have a negative impact on the performance of the policy. An ethical company, following best practice, would have openly disclosed them.

 You state that I was already in the process of arranging an interest only loan through Barclays, and that the sale of the endowment was therefore justified. That should not have precluded your representative from discussing other options for repaying the mortgage; he did not.

 You state that you can find no evidence to support my complaint that a guarantee was given. I refer you to the financial quote provided by A at the time which stated:

“..A regular investment is made into an endowment life assurance policy, which is designed to repay your mortgage at the end of the mortgage term….

A's range of build up mortgage plans is designed not only to repay your mortgage at the end of the mortgage term but also to provide you with an additional cash sum….

By taking out an A build up mortgage plan you can be assured that you are making the right decision for 3 important reasons…

1 Investing into an endowment assurance policy offers you the prospect of a substantial surplus cash sum after the mortgage has been repaid..”.

The above, to my view, constitutes a guarantee.

 I draw your attention to the case (summarised in The Times 26 October 2002) where 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 won his case.

 I first raised my complaint with A on 11 October 2002. Since then I have exchanged a number of letters enquiring as to the progress. I was promised a final response by January 2003, one of several deadlines that was missed. In a letter from Mr... (30 April 2003) I was assured that the reasons for the delays would be answered by A. Your letter does not address these issues.

 My letter of 11 October 2002 requested a copy of my endowment file. This request has been ignored.

 Finally, why would I have opted for an endowment if it were not going to pay off the mortgage? What would have been the point of finding myself at the end of the term with a shortfall?

Based on the above I disagree with your conclusion, and reiterate my contention that I was mis-sold the endowment policy.

Additionally, I am of the opinion that my complaint about the mis-selling and the delays in responding to my original complaint and subsequent letters have not been handled satisfactorily.

To this end, I therefore give you the opportunity to address the points I have raised above; and reconsider you assessment of my claim.

Dependent on your response, I will raise a formal complaint with the Ombudsman and FSA.

As with all other correspondence relating to this matter, this will be posted on my public blog “The Endowment Diary” on www.kenfrost.com

Thank you in advance.

..."

Company A finally wrote back to me in a letter dated 15 May, as per my previous posting.

Very briefly I will summarise:

 They apologise for the delay.

 They explain their decision process.

 They note their key findings.

 They reject my claim.

I will of course not let the matter drop; and will draft a detailed rebuttal of their points, over the next 10 days or so. This will be sent to the Ombudsman and posted on this site.

Good morning everybody,

I received a response from company A today. The letter is signed by yet another member of the Customer Relations Team (the manager this time).

In brief:

1 They state that my letter of the 25th raises a number of issues that will be answered by a Complaints Consultant.

2 They apologise (again!) for the delay.

3 My case has been passed for investigation.

4 A Customer Relations Consultant will be in contact shortly.

And so it continues!

I am 40, so I expect to still be alive when this is resolved.

However, what about those who are approaching retirement; will they be fit and healthy enough to continue to fight for their rights, if companies such as A continue to drag this out?

FYI I have added another section to my website, "Worse Than Worthless", where I name, shame, and award organisations my "WTW" award.

I will await the final outcome of this before naming company A.

I am getting rather "pissed off" with the delay in hearing from company A about my mis-selling complaint relating to my second endowment.

So I fired this off to them today:

"..
Customer Relations Admin Manager

Dear Mr ,

I refer to your letter dated 21 February 2003 (ref ...), in which you state that you are doing everything to resolve my complaint about mis-selling as soon as possible.

I have heard nothing since then, and am very dissatisfied with your handling of this matter; I would appreciate clarification on the following:

 My complaint was lodged with you on 10 October 2002. What is causing this excessive delay?

 I was promised a resolution to my complaint by 31 January 2003; this deadline has been ignored, why?

 When will you resolve my complaint?

I would appreciate a prompt, and non equivocal, response to the above points. Depending on the nature of your response I will consider referring:

 my complaint against you for mis-selling, and

 an additional complaint against you for the excessive delay and poor handling of my mis-selling complaint

to the FSA.

As with all other correspondence, this will be posted to my public blog “The Endowment Diary” on www.kenfrost.com.

Thank you in advance.

Yours sincerely.."

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.

Extract of letter sent today to company A, and copied to The Times:

"..Thank you for your letter dated 14 March (ref OUT). I note its contents.

However, I have the following observations:

 You state that B were not acting as agents of A. However, when I took out my endowment (on the advice of B) they offered only A as an endowment provider, no other companies or products were offered. This to me indicates, at the very least, a “quasi” agency relationship between B and A.

 I assume that B received commission for the sale. Again this indicates to me a “quasi” agency relationship between B and A. Please can you clarify your reasoning for stating that they were not acting as an agent for you.

 You recommend that I contact the Financial Services Ombudsman. This surprises me, as you will have seen from my original letter (dated 23 January) that I have already written to the Ombudsman. In fact, the letter I sent you included a copy of their questionnaire relating to the policy. Their response noted that they could not act, as the endowment was taken out pre 1988.

 Additionally, my letter of 23 January noted the following; quote:

“I completed the Financial Ombudsman Endowment Mortgage Questionnaire, which I despatched in November. They have advised me that I should raise this matter with the product provider; ie yourselves.”

Please can you clarify why you feel I should raise this matter with them again?

It is my understanding of the law of agency, that the principal is liable for the actions of the agent. The Consumers’ Association advise that where:

 the endowment policy was sold pre 1988, and

 the agent (B) refuses to take responsibility for mis-selling;

the principal (A) should be approached, and redress claimed from them.

I contend that B were acting as agents for you, and as such, I reiterate my claim for redress on the basis of mis-selling.

Your letter states that you would like to assist me in progressing my complaint. In addition to clarifying the above queries, I would appreciate the return of the attachments that I sent to you on 23 January, namely:

 The Endowment Questionnaire.

 My letter to B's raising the complaint (dated 11 October 2002).

 B's acknowledgement of receipt (dated 21 October 2002).

 The rejection from B's Compliance and Quality Control Director (dated 28 October 2002).

 My response to their rejection (dated 4 November 2002).

 B's acknowledgement of this (dated 7 November 2002).

Thank you in advance...."

I received a letter today from company A, in respect of my complaint about the mis-selling of my first endowment policy. Extracts as follows:

“…I am sorry to inform you that A are unable to investigate your complaint, as the advice you were given on the sale of the above plan was by an Independent Financial Broker (editorial note this was company B)…

B were not acting, as agents of A but were your own chosen Financial broker…we had no control over the advice that they gave you…

If you feel that you have received an unsatisfactory reply from B, please contact the Financial services Ombudsman service…”

I have the following initial observations:

1. I am sure, but will check my records, that B would have been receiving commission payment for selling A’s policies. This, at the very least, would place them in a quasi agency role.

2. The advice re contacting the Ombudsman is spurious, I have already done so and was told that as the policy was sold in 1987 the legislation does not cover my claim. Indeed the Ombudsman recommended that I contact A!

3. I detailed the last point in my original letter to A, even including the correspondence between myself and the Ombudsman together with the detailed endowment complaint questionnaire. The fact that A now recommends me to contact the Ombudsman indicates to me that they have not read my letter.

This is not the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. I will go through my records and decide what to do next.

Extract of a note sent in response to one received from a surfer yesterday:

"...

Thanks for the note.

Securing compensation, or indeed a response, from these companies is a very very long process...as you know, and as you can see from my own experiences.

Let us hope we are still young enough, and fit enough, to enjoy it when they finally come up with some compensation!

best of luck.

Ken"

I think more butt kicking will be required, given this protracted delay. I will take action during the coming week.