Recently had Initial View from Adjudicator.
Heavy emphasis on need for documentary evidence to 'prove' complaint!!!
No weight given to recollections of complainer.
If you have any previous stock market-based investments(e.g. prior endowment
mortgage, savings plans), beware cos these mean you understood the risks
in the PIA's view.
The Adjudicator says that Ombudsman uses civil law of evidence i.e.
burden of proof is on the 'investor' DESPITE Sir Howard Davies chairman
of FSA being quoted in press last year, that it was up to companies
to prove THEY had given good advice etc.
Basically, I feel FSA/PIA/FOS are only wanting cast iron proof. They
can't cope with everybody who was mis-sold, so they are taking a rigorous
and industry friendly line to keep the numbers down.
Also, they daren't upset the companies too much.
The PIA claim to be impartial.
This is rubbish. If without solid documentary proof, the complaint is
AUTOMATICALLY in favour of the company (which is effectively the result
of applying civil law rules), then how can it be impartial??
Seriously, how many Financial Advisers or companies were stupid enough
to put promises or guarantees in writing?
Precious few.
They seem to have spent more time coming up with convoluted ways of
calculating redress rather than looking closely at the point of sale
tactics that salesmen use, and the highly misleading literature they
used.
The regulators are despite what the ABI say, fairly toothless. Only
a small percentage of people with a genuine complaint are going to get
justice (provided they aren't put off by the Questionnaire you have
to fill in).
Yet again a regulator is portrayed as being a Watchdog, when in reality
it acts more in a damage limitation role.
You might think I'm angry.
Damn right I am, but also pessimistic about sending good money after
bad in getting legal advice.
By way of illustration, Year ending July 2001, premiums paid £542,
increase in value £3.
Suitable for a mortgage repayment??? It's a sick joke.
