I wrote to the Treasury Select Committee a while ago, alerting them to the existence of this site.
I received a reply on Friday.
Here is an extract of the reply, received from the Senior Clerk to the Treasury Select Committee:
"....I have made your comments, together with the address of your endowment diary, available to all members of the Committee..."
Could be interesting.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Diversionary Tactics
It is reported that Legal and General (L&G) brought in a "memory expert" yesterday, to support their case against the £1M fine imposed on them by the Financial Services Authority (FSA).
The expert noted that customers' memories were likely to be distorted over the passage of time.
L&G are trying to undermine the customer survey, that was used by the FSA in their case against L&G for endowment mis-selling.
L&G allege that the survey of 152 customers was not large enough, and that the recollections of those questioned must be called into question.
Let us not get sidetracked by these courtroom games.
The real issue here is that people bought these useless polices, in the expectation that they would pay off the mortgage.
These policies are not going to pay off the mortgages. As a result of a combination of:
-Mis-selling
-Passing the entire risk of holding the policy onto the customer, whilst taking a fat commission
-Excessive commission payments
-Diabolical mismanagement of the funds in which the policies are invested
endowment policies are going to dramatically undershoot their targets.
In other words, they are not fit for purpose.
The FSA and the life assurance companies should stop messing around with these diversionary tactics. The issue is simply this, the policies were not fit for purpose; as such the life assurance industry, which has made some very large profits out of creating, selling and "managing" these useless products, must agree to underwrite them.
It is reported that Legal and General (L&G) brought in a "memory expert" yesterday, to support their case against the £1M fine imposed on them by the Financial Services Authority (FSA).
The expert noted that customers' memories were likely to be distorted over the passage of time.
L&G are trying to undermine the customer survey, that was used by the FSA in their case against L&G for endowment mis-selling.
L&G allege that the survey of 152 customers was not large enough, and that the recollections of those questioned must be called into question.
Let us not get sidetracked by these courtroom games.
The real issue here is that people bought these useless polices, in the expectation that they would pay off the mortgage.
These policies are not going to pay off the mortgages. As a result of a combination of:
-Mis-selling
-Passing the entire risk of holding the policy onto the customer, whilst taking a fat commission
-Excessive commission payments
-Diabolical mismanagement of the funds in which the policies are invested
endowment policies are going to dramatically undershoot their targets.
In other words, they are not fit for purpose.
The FSA and the life assurance companies should stop messing around with these diversionary tactics. The issue is simply this, the policies were not fit for purpose; as such the life assurance industry, which has made some very large profits out of creating, selling and "managing" these useless products, must agree to underwrite them.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
A "Shabby Habit"?
It seems that Abbey National are allegedly not playing fair with endowment complaints, relating to policies sold before 1988.
According to reports, the Abbey National are automatically rejecting out of hand any complaints made about policies sold pre 1988.
This despite the fact that the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has warned them that they must investigate each case.
According to mortgage complaint handlers, such as Endowment Justice and CPH Financial Advisory Services, 100% of complaints are being rejected by a pro forma letter; which claims that Abbey do not have to establish attitudes to risk, or keep records of what was discussed pre 1988.
Over a year ago the FOS warned banks and building societies that mis-selling still can have occurred pre 1988. Our chums in the life assurance industry, despite attempts to obfuscate over this issue, still owe us the hapless owners of these useless policies a duty of care.
Our chums may now find themselves in hot water over this, as the FOS has reported their names to the FSA.
Abbey denies the allegations.
Will anyone who was sold a policy by the Abbey, pre 1988, and who has managed to gain compensation from them please drop me a note.
I am more than happy to back up Abbey's claim!
The bottom line here is, that if you receive a rejection letter from the company that sold you a worthless policy; don't accept it.
Fight back!
It seems that Abbey National are allegedly not playing fair with endowment complaints, relating to policies sold before 1988.
According to reports, the Abbey National are automatically rejecting out of hand any complaints made about policies sold pre 1988.
This despite the fact that the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has warned them that they must investigate each case.
According to mortgage complaint handlers, such as Endowment Justice and CPH Financial Advisory Services, 100% of complaints are being rejected by a pro forma letter; which claims that Abbey do not have to establish attitudes to risk, or keep records of what was discussed pre 1988.
Over a year ago the FOS warned banks and building societies that mis-selling still can have occurred pre 1988. Our chums in the life assurance industry, despite attempts to obfuscate over this issue, still owe us the hapless owners of these useless policies a duty of care.
Our chums may now find themselves in hot water over this, as the FOS has reported their names to the FSA.
Abbey denies the allegations.
Will anyone who was sold a policy by the Abbey, pre 1988, and who has managed to gain compensation from them please drop me a note.
I am more than happy to back up Abbey's claim!
The bottom line here is, that if you receive a rejection letter from the company that sold you a worthless policy; don't accept it.
Fight back!
Monday, October 11, 2004
Expert Conned
It seems that even those at the very top of the finance industry, were conned into believing that endowment policies would work.
It is reported that Simon Chapman, a senior partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) and an expert on financial services compliance, bought a Legal & General (L&G) endowment policy.
He was assured that the L&G policy was "a sure fire way" to pay off his mortgage, and produce a cash surplus.
Familiar words?
This revelation came out during the court battle between the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and L&G, last week.
Happily for Mr Chapman, after complaining about the policy being mis-sold, he received compensation of premiums plus interest.
Let us hope that we all receive such treatment from our life assurance companies!
Ironically he was then hired, jointly by the FSA and L&G, to investigate a sample of L&G endowment customers; as part of an FSA investigation into alleged mis-selling.
It seems that even those at the very top of the finance industry, were conned into believing that endowment policies would work.
It is reported that Simon Chapman, a senior partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) and an expert on financial services compliance, bought a Legal & General (L&G) endowment policy.
He was assured that the L&G policy was "a sure fire way" to pay off his mortgage, and produce a cash surplus.
Familiar words?
This revelation came out during the court battle between the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and L&G, last week.
Happily for Mr Chapman, after complaining about the policy being mis-sold, he received compensation of premiums plus interest.
Let us hope that we all receive such treatment from our life assurance companies!
Ironically he was then hired, jointly by the FSA and L&G, to investigate a sample of L&G endowment customers; as part of an FSA investigation into alleged mis-selling.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Friday, October 08, 2004
Lies, Damned Lies
Embattled endowment policy holders, that's you and me folks, suffered another kick in the "cahoonas" yesterday; as Standard Life reneged on its promise to cover endowment shortfalls.
The reason that they reneged on this promise, was in effect to make the company look more attractive to investors when it floats in 2006.
The promise, known as the "Standard Life Mortgage Endowment Promise", was made four years ago. Standard Life had pledged to provide financial support to customers with endowments that failed to meet their target value.
Seemingly that promise was bullshit.
The cover will now only apply to those polices maturing before the end of 2005.
This move is expected to adversely affect 600000 policy holders with underperforming endowments.
This is bad news for policy holders in Norwich Union, which had also given a similar undertaking to attract customers. It is likely that Norwich Union will feel free to renege on their promise, now that they have no pressure to keep it. They have stated that they intend to honour it.
Standard Life has also set May 2006 as the deadline for complaining about endowment shortfalls.
As if this was not bad enough, Standard Life also announced that they will be cutting top ups on other policies by 40%-60%. This will exacerbate the size of policyholders' shortfalls.
Maybe disgruntled policy holders should buy a stake in the company, when it floats, then sack the directors?
The problem being, that most policy holders are now fretting as to where they will find the money to cover the shortfall on their underperforming useless endowment policies.
Embattled endowment policy holders, that's you and me folks, suffered another kick in the "cahoonas" yesterday; as Standard Life reneged on its promise to cover endowment shortfalls.
The reason that they reneged on this promise, was in effect to make the company look more attractive to investors when it floats in 2006.
The promise, known as the "Standard Life Mortgage Endowment Promise", was made four years ago. Standard Life had pledged to provide financial support to customers with endowments that failed to meet their target value.
Seemingly that promise was bullshit.
The cover will now only apply to those polices maturing before the end of 2005.
This move is expected to adversely affect 600000 policy holders with underperforming endowments.
This is bad news for policy holders in Norwich Union, which had also given a similar undertaking to attract customers. It is likely that Norwich Union will feel free to renege on their promise, now that they have no pressure to keep it. They have stated that they intend to honour it.
Standard Life has also set May 2006 as the deadline for complaining about endowment shortfalls.
As if this was not bad enough, Standard Life also announced that they will be cutting top ups on other policies by 40%-60%. This will exacerbate the size of policyholders' shortfalls.
Maybe disgruntled policy holders should buy a stake in the company, when it floats, then sack the directors?
The problem being, that most policy holders are now fretting as to where they will find the money to cover the shortfall on their underperforming useless endowment policies.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
What is The Point of The FSA?
A few days ago, as noted on this site, I sent the FSA an email; asking for their reaction to the fact that my life assurance company suggested that I "top up" my underperforming, failing, endowment policy.
They replied today.
Their note contained links to parts of their site, with general information about endowments. However, they noted that they could not give opinions or rule interpretations; indeed they could offer no specific advice on the validity of any complaint that I may have.
May I ask, precisely what is the point of the FSA if it is not there to assist members of the public such as myself; when we are faced with a blatant attempt, by the life assurance companies, to con more money out of us?
A few days ago, as noted on this site, I sent the FSA an email; asking for their reaction to the fact that my life assurance company suggested that I "top up" my underperforming, failing, endowment policy.
They replied today.
Their note contained links to parts of their site, with general information about endowments. However, they noted that they could not give opinions or rule interpretations; indeed they could offer no specific advice on the validity of any complaint that I may have.
May I ask, precisely what is the point of the FSA if it is not there to assist members of the public such as myself; when we are faced with a blatant attempt, by the life assurance companies, to con more money out of us?
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
More Mis-selling
My "friendly" life assurance company has written to me again, this time they have sent me a warning letter about my other endowment policy.
This policy, taken out in 1987, was meant to cover a mortgage of £35K.
The projected shortfall is, roll on the drums......£10600.
In other words 30% of my mortgage.
Put that together with the other shortfall of £14500 projected by my life assurance company (see earlier post), and I am going to have to find £25K when my two endowments expire in 2012.
Do I think that I have been ripped off?
I do.
To add insult to injury, the life assurance company then goes on to suggest that I could top up my underperforming policy.
I think that it is high time that these companies were brought "to book" over this £40BN scandal that is bordering on the criminal.
My "friendly" life assurance company has written to me again, this time they have sent me a warning letter about my other endowment policy.
This policy, taken out in 1987, was meant to cover a mortgage of £35K.
The projected shortfall is, roll on the drums......£10600.
In other words 30% of my mortgage.
Put that together with the other shortfall of £14500 projected by my life assurance company (see earlier post), and I am going to have to find £25K when my two endowments expire in 2012.
Do I think that I have been ripped off?
I do.
To add insult to injury, the life assurance company then goes on to suggest that I could top up my underperforming policy.
I think that it is high time that these companies were brought "to book" over this £40BN scandal that is bordering on the criminal.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Think It's Bad in England?
Those of you who think that you are having a tough time in England, trying to claim redress for an underperforming endowment policy; should spare a thought for those living in Scotland.
It seems that the only channel Scottish endowment holders can take, when claiming compensation, is to use a solicitor to make a case against the original solicitor who mis-sold the policy.
In Scotland it is solicitors who handle property sales.
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) cannot help, as solicitors advising on investments only came under the Financial Services Authority in December 2001.
The Law Society of Scotland can only order a solicitor to pay compensation up to a mere £1000, so they are not much use.
I hold the view that it is not so much the IFA that should be blamed, but the life assurance company that created this underperforming worthless product.
In my view tha the Sale of Goods Act should be invoked, after all these endowments were sold like TV's and cars, noting that the product is "not fit for purpose".
Those of you who think that you are having a tough time in England, trying to claim redress for an underperforming endowment policy; should spare a thought for those living in Scotland.
It seems that the only channel Scottish endowment holders can take, when claiming compensation, is to use a solicitor to make a case against the original solicitor who mis-sold the policy.
In Scotland it is solicitors who handle property sales.
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) cannot help, as solicitors advising on investments only came under the Financial Services Authority in December 2001.
The Law Society of Scotland can only order a solicitor to pay compensation up to a mere £1000, so they are not much use.
I hold the view that it is not so much the IFA that should be blamed, but the life assurance company that created this underperforming worthless product.
In my view tha the Sale of Goods Act should be invoked, after all these endowments were sold like TV's and cars, noting that the product is "not fit for purpose".
Monday, October 04, 2004
What is The Worst Criminal Act? Car Theft, or Mis-selling an Endowment Policy?
An interesting report is due to be published later this month by the Crime and Society Foundation, a new criminal justice think-tank.
The report claims that official crime statistics are not a reliable indicator of the true level of offences.
One section of the report refers to the damage done to society as a whole, by the mis-selling of endowment mortgages. Quote:
"A prolific car thief might blight the lives of tens of hundreds of people. The mis-selling of endowment policies has blighted the lives of many thousands...".
As many of us have long suspected, despite what the FSA and life assurance companies pretend, the mis-selling of endowment policies was bordering on the criminal.
Are we likely to see any arrests?
An interesting report is due to be published later this month by the Crime and Society Foundation, a new criminal justice think-tank.
The report claims that official crime statistics are not a reliable indicator of the true level of offences.
One section of the report refers to the damage done to society as a whole, by the mis-selling of endowment mortgages. Quote:
"A prolific car thief might blight the lives of tens of hundreds of people. The mis-selling of endowment policies has blighted the lives of many thousands...".
As many of us have long suspected, despite what the FSA and life assurance companies pretend, the mis-selling of endowment policies was bordering on the criminal.
Are we likely to see any arrests?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)