The FSA has said that firms should consider endowment mortgage complaints in line with its "Tiner principles", which advised firms to -

1. recognise in the assessment of the complaint that the key risk for the consumer is that the endowment may not repay the mortgage loan
    
2. avoid too narrow a view of the scope of the advisory duty in the context of mortgage advice
    
3. recognise that oral evidence can be good and sufficient evidence, avoiding too ready a dismissal of evidence from the consumer which is not supported by documentary proof
    
4. investigate the issue diligently in particular so as to take into account the selling practices at the time, the training, instruction, sales scripts and incentives given to advisers at the time and the track record of the particular adviser
    
5. go the extra mile to clarify ambiguous issues or conflicts of evidence before finding against the consumer
    
6. avoid making a conclusive assumption that a pre-existing endowment held at time of sale, whether for purposes of savings or mortgage repayment, is sufficient evidence of understanding and acceptance of the key risk
    
7. avoid making too literal and narrow an interpretation of the issue of the complaint as expressed by the consumer
    
8. avoid rejecting complaints solely on the basis that the consumer signed a proposal form or failed to exercise the cancellation right and so must be presumed to have been satisfied with the advice and the product at time of sale
    
9. avoid claiming as evidence of risk warning at time of sale (so as to justify rejection of the complaint) either:
    
   • the absence of a statement in product literature that repayment of the mortgage was guaranteed; or
      
   • a statement in product particulars that the firm will monitor the plan and advise the consumer if the level of contribution is insufficient for the target amount to be repaid.