This is the sixth of the examples provided by the ombudsman, which we have listed here.

The problems

Just before she was due to retire, the policyholder discovered that her endowment policy would run beyond her retirement age and that it was forecast not to produce enough to pay off her mortgage.

And her financial adviser had arranged a top-up interest only mortgage for her, but failed to put in place any arrangements to repay it. He just advised her to take out a free standing additional voluntary contribution (FSAVC) scheme.

The firm accepted that the endowment had not been appropriate for her needs, but did not accept any other aspect of the complaint. It offered her a refund of premiums with interest.

The firm had taken considerable time to complete its investigation and a considerable amount of paperwork was missing.

The decisions

1. The original mortgage was unsuitable, both because it ran into retirement and because of her attitude to risk. The redress was therefore to put her in the position she would have been in if she had taken a repayment mortgage that ran to her retirement date.
    
2. The representative was negligent about the top-up mortgage. Again, the redress was to put her in the position she would have been in if she had taken a repayment mortgage that ran to her retirement date.
    
3. The adviser had not discussed with her the difference between an FSAVC and her employer's scheme. She should be reinstated to her AVC scheme, with the firm making up any shortfall.
    
4. The maximum award available under the ombudsman's mandatory jurisdiction is £1,500. This was appropriate bearing in mind her doctor's report.