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.

I received a letter from company A today, in response to my butt kick, extract as follows:

"..I refer to our previous correspondence in which we explained that we expected we would be able to provide a final response to your complaint.

I apologise for the further delay but assure you that we are continuing to investigate your case and do everything to resolve your complaint as soon as possible.

we are very sorry about the continual delay.."

pp'ed by the customer relations manager.

Well my thoughts are as follows:

1 Apologies are very nice but achieve nothing, ie fine words butter no parsnips.

2 Their letter of Dec siad that I would have an answer by 31 Jan, now they do not even give a deadline.

3 I predicted some time ago (see earlier posts) that the sheer volume of complaints would overload the system..sad to be proved right.

I will give them a little more time then kick harder by telling them that I will reveal their name on my website.

I received this today from one of our fellow endowment holders, edited extract...

"Hello Ken

Re: Endowment Mortgage Action Group

Great news - Today, after letters, faxes, emails and phonecalls, the £375 fee that I paid to ***(edited out) in August 2000, plus the documents I had supplied , was returned minus £2.16 postage!!! So they get to keep the interest for 2 years plus. Is this what is called sharp practice?

When your newspaper (edited) contact rang some months ago she was told that the scheme was being suspended because they were unable to obtain legal expenses insurance. The paper (edited) was advised that people would get their money back. When I rang yesterday to enquire about the delay the secretary first asked me if I was a new member of the group, so it looks as if the game continues. Curiouser and curiouser.

Now that I am back where I started two and a half years ago, I am pursuing my claim with the lender and of course, as you know, it is a slow grind.

Best wishes.."

My reply, edited extract..

"Hi ...,

Bit of a curate's egg really isn't it?

You get your money back but have wasted 2 years time and effort, plus lost interest income.

I agree it is a very slow grind....

best regards,

Ken"

Extract of the letter sent today to company A to remind them that they have fallen behind schedule...

".....I refer to your letter dated 6 December (ref 62648), in which you advised me that you would have a final response to my complaint by 31 January.

I have heard nothing since then; please can you advise me as to the status of that response, and clarify the reasons for the delay.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely...."

You will see from my post of 8 Dec that company A had promised to give me a final judgement by 31 Jan. That date has come and gone!

No letter, or communciation, from them.

Time to "kick butt!".

I will draft an appropriate "butt kicker" over the next 24 hours.

My new letter as promised:

"Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to make a claim for financial redress in respect of a ***(edited out) endowment policy sold to me, in August 1987, by ***(edited out) the estate agents.

The basis of my claim is as follows:

 The Mortgage Services Partner of *** advised me that the endowment would produce a surplus in excess of the mortgage which would be tax free.

 The Partner did not explain that there was a risk.

 There was no mention of the funds that my endowment would be invested in.

 The Partner did not enquire as to my attitude to risk.

 The Partner did not discuss the fees and charges on the policy.

 There was no fact find completed during the sales process.

 Other options for paying off the mortgage were not discussed.

Please be advised that I have already written to *** along these lines. They reject the claim citing, amongst others, the fact that the Financial Services Act had not yet come into force at this stage. I reject their reasoning on a number of grounds; including, but not limited to, the following:

 Whether the FSA has jurisdiction, or not, over policies purchased before April 1988 is irrelevant. I was told that there would be a tax free surplus over and above the mortgage sum borrowed. There is now a projected shortfall, as advised by ***, of £10500 assuming a 4% growth rate.

I draw your attention to the case summarised in The Times (26 October 2002); whereby 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 was successful in obtaining compensation from the Halifax for the shortfall in his policy.

 The fact that the Financial Services Act came into force eight months after **** sold me the endowment does not alter the key question as to whether best practice, from both an ethical and industry-wide perspective, was followed when the policy was sold.

 A well regulated ethical company would have been aware of the forthcoming legislation, and would have ensured best practice procedures were in place prior to its implementation; to ensure that the key issues raised by the legislation were addressed.

 As to whether the under-performance of the endowment policy could have been foreseen, or not, is irrelevant. The issue is whether the policy was mis-sold, or not, it is my contention that it was mis-sold.

 I believe that the Sale of Goods act also applies, namely that the policy was sold as a “product” that would cover my mortgage debt, not as an investment. This “product” has been shown to be not “fit for purpose”; and as such the shortfall should be compensated by the agent (****) or the product “manufacturer” ****.

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. To this end please be advised that I have enclosed the following:

 The Endowment Questionnaire.

 My letter to **** raising the complaint (dated 11 October 2002).

 **** acknowledgement of receipt (dated 21 October 2002).

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

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

 ***** acknowledgement of this (dated 7 November 2002).

Please feel free to contact me if you require further information.

Please be advised that since September I have maintained a public diary of my efforts to obtain redress, on my website http://www.kenfrost.com. Additionally, I have copied this letter to The Times.

Thank you in advance for your time and assistance in this matter.

Yours faithfully,


K. Frost"

Isn't this fun!

I received a suggestion; by all accounts, if the sales company (company B) and Ombudsman rejects the claim as it was pre 1988, I can try to raise the issue with the company which provided the endowment (which by coincidence is company A).

So I will fire off a letter in the next few days to see if they will do the decent thing.