To start with ...

In Martin v Britannia Life 1997 , the Judge said, "the salesman's advice extended to giving advice in respect of the Bank of Scotland mortgage. (Para.5.2.5)

He further stated, "it would be at best wholly unrealistic, and at worst positively misleading, to leave out of the account the merits or otherwise of entering into the underlying mortgage transaction which the policy is designed to support".

Until the year 2000, Regulators and The Industry had wrongly maintained that the policies and mortgage advice were separate.

The Court of Appeal have described Bank of Scotland's stabiliser mortgages as "scandalous" (Lord Justice Laws), "deplorable" (Lord Justice Walker), and "like the 13th chime of a clock; it casts into doubt everything that has gone before":

"I should state, and I do so emphatically, that in my judgment the Bank's documentation is disgracefully sloppy and well capable of creating confusion. I regard it as nothing short of scandalous…" Laws, L.J.

"It is deplorable that the Defendants' right to their home should depend on the interpretation and combined effect on no fewer than four contractual documents which do not use, as they should, a clear and combined terminology." Walker, L.J.

See also Section 47 of The Financial Services Act 1986: "Any person who makes a misleading false or deceptive statement or dishonestly conceals any material facts or recklessly whether dishonestly or not makes [such a statement etc] ... is guilty of an offence" if he does so to induce anyone to enter into an investment agreement. This includes an endowment policy.

Put all three together and you may have a defence to repossession, a claim for compensation, and a claim if there is a shortfall on your mortgage when you were told it would be paid off with a nice little nest egg on top.