Tweet
In 1988 I was unfortunately diagnosed with a chronic illnessprimary progressive multiple sclerosis.
This meant me and my wife having to re-evaluate oursituation. The priority was the mortgage. To make sure the mortgage would be paid off when we both retired the obvious was a repayment mortgage to pay off asmuch as possible in the early stages while I was capable of contributing as itwould be a joint application. We approached the local branch of the leeds permanent building society and applied. Unbeknown to us our application was passed on to an independent financial advisor martin taylor mortgage and financial services by individuals in the employment of the (lpbs).
Our grievance is that firstly we were given an endowment linked mortgage that relied on long term investment to accrue funds to pay off the mortgage Which is an option we definitely did not ask for or want.We were advised by a friend of ours to contact the assurance company and enquire about waiver of premium as these policies generally have a chronic illness cover for waver of premium it was then wediscovered we had been mislead by the (lpbs)and(mtmfs). As they were aware of my chronic illness. Given the predicamentThe logical and only option was a short term repayment mortgage with a standard life insurance policy for each of us were the reservations we had regarding my earning potential prospects did not appear promising. Our needs were completely disregarded by the (lpbs) and(mtmfs). in favour of commission and
Following further investigation into this deception we havediscovered that the (lpbs) had ceased selling endowments in march 1988 It is obvious that an employeeor employees passed on our application to (mtmfs)in breach of their company policy. The policy providers provident life assurance company paid the commission to (mtmfs) and only issue policies on request the only possible way for (mtmfs)got our details was from the (lpbs). The halifax building society previously (lpbs). Are stating that as it was not a member of their staff who sold this it is not their problem. When eventually a response is received they hold fast tothe company guidelines to back each other. The (fsa) are no different and staffed by ex employees of banks working for a gilt edged pension. All the (fsa) has achieved as aregulatory body is pander to the banking institutes and established regulations to favour the banking establishment The (lpbs) used the services of (mtmfs) a non regulated bogus company to contravene their own company policy. for example when we initially protested the (fsa) upheld our complaint but reduced it to a shortfall and theywere more than happy to accept this as it meant paying an insignificant shortfall compensation even though we were not satisfied with thisdecision. As the initial complaint was deception between the (lpbs) and (mtmfs).Whobetween them deceived us into believing we were getting the service that was presentedat that time by the (lpbs). Allappeared to be above board with a notice of assignment drawn up by thesolicitors for the (lpbs) and theprovident life association and policy documents showing a minimum payout of32000£. ( mtmfs) stated it would exceed this amount and would leave us with extra funds touse how we wanted. Why would we suspectdeception was being carried out and we were the unfortunate victims
It is automatically assumed that when financial deceptionis committed it is the applicants who are the architects . When in oursituation it is the establishment who are the perpetrators. And i do not believefor one moment that we are the only victims. There was a hue and cry about miss sold PPi fiasco. This debacle has more serious consequences reflecting onindividuals homes and livelyhoods
This meant me and my wife having to re-evaluate oursituation. The priority was the mortgage. To make sure the mortgage would be paid off when we both retired the obvious was a repayment mortgage to pay off asmuch as possible in the early stages while I was capable of contributing as itwould be a joint application. We approached the local branch of the leeds permanent building society and applied. Unbeknown to us our application was passed on to an independent financial advisor martin taylor mortgage and financial services by individuals in the employment of the (lpbs).
Our grievance is that firstly we were given an endowment linked mortgage that relied on long term investment to accrue funds to pay off the mortgage Which is an option we definitely did not ask for or want.We were advised by a friend of ours to contact the assurance company and enquire about waiver of premium as these policies generally have a chronic illness cover for waver of premium it was then wediscovered we had been mislead by the (lpbs)and(mtmfs). As they were aware of my chronic illness. Given the predicamentThe logical and only option was a short term repayment mortgage with a standard life insurance policy for each of us were the reservations we had regarding my earning potential prospects did not appear promising. Our needs were completely disregarded by the (lpbs) and(mtmfs). in favour of commission and
Following further investigation into this deception we havediscovered that the (lpbs) had ceased selling endowments in march 1988 It is obvious that an employeeor employees passed on our application to (mtmfs)in breach of their company policy. The policy providers provident life assurance company paid the commission to (mtmfs) and only issue policies on request the only possible way for (mtmfs)got our details was from the (lpbs). The halifax building society previously (lpbs). Are stating that as it was not a member of their staff who sold this it is not their problem. When eventually a response is received they hold fast tothe company guidelines to back each other. The (fsa) are no different and staffed by ex employees of banks working for a gilt edged pension. All the (fsa) has achieved as aregulatory body is pander to the banking institutes and established regulations to favour the banking establishment The (lpbs) used the services of (mtmfs) a non regulated bogus company to contravene their own company policy. for example when we initially protested the (fsa) upheld our complaint but reduced it to a shortfall and theywere more than happy to accept this as it meant paying an insignificant shortfall compensation even though we were not satisfied with thisdecision. As the initial complaint was deception between the (lpbs) and (mtmfs).Whobetween them deceived us into believing we were getting the service that was presentedat that time by the (lpbs). Allappeared to be above board with a notice of assignment drawn up by thesolicitors for the (lpbs) and theprovident life association and policy documents showing a minimum payout of32000£. ( mtmfs) stated it would exceed this amount and would leave us with extra funds touse how we wanted. Why would we suspectdeception was being carried out and we were the unfortunate victims
It is automatically assumed that when financial deceptionis committed it is the applicants who are the architects . When in oursituation it is the establishment who are the perpetrators. And i do not believefor one moment that we are the only victims. There was a hue and cry about miss sold PPi fiasco. This debacle has more serious consequences reflecting onindividuals homes and livelyhoods
Comment