I see that Jonathan Bloomer (CEO of Prudential) has been up in front of the Treasury Select Committee, which is investigating the endowment mortgage mis-selling scandal.

He told them the following, "I very much regret any mis-selling that we have done".

That's alright then!

Other heads of the companies that sold these endowment policies will be grilled by the Committee today.

The FSA estimates that around 3.5 million people are facing a shortfall on their endowment policies.

By anyone's reckoning, that is a lot of angry people.

I received a letter from the company that is handling my claims for endowment mis-selling, in respect of my endowment policy taken out in 1987.

They state that they beleive that I "have a good case for receiving endowment mortgage compensation".

If this is true, then it will be a watershed for people who are facing shortfalls on policies taken out pre April 1988.

The endowment companies have been hiding behind the legislation that only came into effect at that date; stating that pre April 1988, the rules for mis-selling do not apply.

The letter included a form for me to complete (I am an expert at these!), which enables me to provide them with more details about the policy.

First the good news; the FTSE is on the rise, and has hit an 18 month high.

Now the bad news; the companies that manage endowment schemes have reduced the proportion of their assets held in equities, favouring less risky (and less profitable) bonds and gilts instead.

This means that now that the bonus announcement season is upon us once again, don't get your hopes up; there will be a plethora of bonus cuts again this year.

I received an email from the company handling my claim for the mis-selling of my second endowment mortgage.

It seems that there are areas that they can pursue in taking my claim forward.

The process is likely to take 3-6 months; not for the fainthearted!

Extract below:

"...We have assessed your case and have highlighted a number of possible areas
of complaint that we believe we can move forward on your behalf to your
endowment provider. If we have not heard to the contrary in the next 48
hours we will issue these complaints on your behalf.

To enable us to properly manage your expectations with regard to the
timescales involved in the complaints process, we are currently finding that
it takes 3-6 months for a decision to be made on a complaint. As soon as we
have some pertinent detail to report regarding your case, we will of course
contact you to advise of this. In any event, we will contact you 8 weeks
after the complaint has been issued to report progress to date..."

I see that the FSA has fined Friends Provident £675K, for unfairly rejecting 5500 complaints about mis-selling of endowment policies.

That is good news for all of us who have had their complaints rejected by other firms.

The FSA have released some stats relating to the complaints they received during 2003.

They received 26000 complaints, each one of which took around 6-8 months to process.

They upheld about a 1/3rd of them.

As I have noted many times before on this blog, given the fact that there are about 5M people who may be in a position to claim; there is going to be an almighty backlog soon!

I received an email from a fellow endowment holder, who has a policy dating back before 1988.

His initial complaint was rejected by the major building society who sold him the policy, as it was pre 1988.

However, he received a letter from them recently which said that they have been passed details of his appeal against their decison by the FOS.

They have again reviewed the case, and they will now uphold the complaint after all.

It seems that the 1988 rule is flexible after all; just as the claims company that is handling my pre 1988 case have indicated to me.

Maybe we will get somewhere.

I see that John Tiner, Chief Executive of the FSA, has admitted that there was "very widespread mis-selling of endowment mortgages".

No kidding?

Now the flood gates of claims will really open.

I have sent the following email to Angela Eagle MP, who is on the Treasury Select Committee; they have lambasted the insurance industry this week, as it is estimated that there will be a £100M shortfall on endowment policies.

"..Dear Ms Eagle,

I read with interest your views on endowment policies, expressed in the Treasury Select Committee.

I agree; to my view there are two issues that the FSA, and the insurance industry, seem to be neglecting wrt compensation claims:

1 The policies were sold like TV's and cars; ie as products with a defined purpose, to pay off the mortgage debt, not as investments.

When a car or TV breaks down, and is shown not to be "fit for purpose", the consumer is entitled to a replacemnt or money back.

The endowment policies, whose sole purpose was to pay off a mortgage debt, have been shown to be "not fit for purpose".

2 Why would any rational individual buy an endowment if it were not going to pay off the mortgage?

Taking the above into account, I believe that the industry should compensate the 5 million of us who face a shortfall.

You may be interested to know that I have been keeping a web diary for the last year charting my progress, or lack of it, in claiming redress.

This can be viewed by going to my website http://www.kenfrost.com and going to the "Endowment Diary" section.

Additionally, you may be interested to know that I have registered with the BBC iCan site to express an interest in starting a campaign to claim compensation; it will be interesting to see if others join in.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any queries..."

I have placed my complaint, re my second policy, in the hands of the company who are handling my 1987 policy; nothing ventured, nothing gained!

I have also registered my interest in starting a web campaign for compensation, for the 5 million people who are estimated to be at risk of a shortfall; on the BBC iCan site .

It will be interesting to see if people join in.

I received a reply today from the Ombudsman, in response to my letter dated 28 September (see post 29 September).

In brief, the key points are:

 They apologise for taking so long to respond, and assure me that everything that I have told them has been considered.

 The six week gap, in 1991, between enquiring about the policy and completing the paperwork could have been used for considering the policy (rather than, as it was, being used to negotiate a purchase price reduction for my new apartment).

 The fact that the investment attitude section of A’s application form was not completed does not constitute a mis-sale.

 The fixed mortgage I took out precluded me from using a repayment mortgage; therefore I had to have an endowment.

 They acknowledge that I did indeed make a complaint to them about the first endowment policy I took out. However, as this was before April 1988 there is nothing they can do. Note, their original argument was that they had no record of me complaining to them about the first policy; and so they questioned why I was complaining about the second policy. They have ignored their error, and hidden behind the fact that they do not handle claims pre April 1988.

 They note that, in their mortgage questionnaire, I have assessed my attitude to risk (on a scale of 1-10) as 2-cautious. They consider this to be not “entirely risk averse”; therefore the sale of an endowment is justified (in other words only those who score 1 can complain; a bizarre method of rating, why offer such a wide range of 1-10? Tip to all of you filling these in, score yourselves as 1).

 They repeat the fact that my current modest portfolio of shares, is indicative of my risk attitude in 1991; when I didn’t hold these shares. They also note that in 1991 I held the princely sum of £900 of shares, this indicates that I am prepared to risk my money. To compare my current investment and risk attitude, with my investment and risk attitude of 12 or more years ago is akin to comparing apples to bananas; it is not a valid line of reasoning.

 They have carefully considered the wording of A’s brochure, and note that it is positively worded (the word “assured” appears in the brochure, I would say that is more than just “positive”). They do not consider that it constitutes a guarantee.

 They will not uphold my complaint.

 I will need to provide new evidence/arguments for their opinion to change.

I note that the following paragraphs from my letter of September have been entirely ignored:

“..In conclusion, there would be little point (for any rational individual) in taking out an endowment policy if it were not going to pay off the mortgage.

L&G marketed these polices like cars and TV’s; ie a product with a defined function, namely, to pay off the mortgage. L&G by selling them as a product with a defined function, not as an investment, have by definition mis-sold them. The policy has been shown to be not “fit for purpose” as it will not cover the mortgage; and as with any product, not “fit for purpose”, the supplier should compensate the consumer for defects in manufacture….”

As entertaining as it may be to exchange a further series of letters rebutting their points, akin to a protracted game of tennis, it is clear to me that I can go no further with the Ombudsman service. Therefore having exhausted all routes that I can take by myself, it is time (as Mr Burns of Simpsons fame would say) to “release the hounds”.

I will place this case in the hands of the agency who are handling my other complaint; let’s see if they can get further.