# Mother in law given poor investment advice. How to investigate?



## BetsyClark (24 Jul 2011)

Hello

My husband believes that his mother (then aged 66) was given poor advice in 2007, by a high street bank's investment adviser, and a lump sum was invested in a property portfolio, which, as you can imagine, has performed poorly.

This has only recently come to light as my MIL asked for help making an application for a carers allowance and got an up to date valuation on her investment.

My husband wants to investigate further. He hopes to see evidence of the bank's "fact finding" documentation. Can anyone advise on how to word a letter and what precisely we should ask from the bank.

Many thanks

Betsy


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Jul 2011)

The bank should have given your mother a "reasons why" letter explaining why the investment was suitable. Your mother should have this. 

You can request the entire file under the Data Protection Act but asking for the reasons why letter should be quicker and more focussed.

Brendan


----------



## pod (25 Jul 2011)

*investment*

hI,had a similar problem with my mother in law,she was 76 at the time.I got her to write to financial ombudsman,she got 90% back, she was obviously delighted.
At the time even her solicitor said she would have little chance,my advice is to try this approach,out line that she did not understand the product and that the consequences were not explained properly,best of luck.


----------



## paperclip (26 Jul 2011)

pod said:


> hI,had a similar problem with my mother in law,she was 76 at the time.I got her to write to financial ombudsman,she got 90% back, she was obviously delighted.
> At the time even her solicitor said she would have little chance,my advice is to try this approach,out line that she did not understand the product and that the consequences were not explained properly,best of luck.



Nice, old lady 1, bank 0


----------



## mercman (3 Aug 2011)

I find it amazing that Investors that are missold financial products have to go through the tortures and time wasting of the Ombudsman's office or the Courts to get justice and a refund. In most case it is blatantly obvious that wrong has been done and the companies concerned simply bury their heads in the sand. Thankfully today, 3rd.August 2011, a new law has been adopted to cease these fraudulent actions. The Financial Regulator and The Central Bank leave their actions somewhat short in policing this industry. i.e. I am aware of a case where the person missold a Financial Product and has had their license revoked, but are back selling Financial Products to the public.


----------



## jackbetal (4 Aug 2011)

BetsyClark said:


> Hello
> 
> My husband believes that his mother (then aged 66) was given poor advice in 2007, by a high street bank's investment adviser, and a lump sum was invested in a property portfolio, which, as you can imagine, has performed poorly.
> 
> ...



These might be a good starting point.

[broken link removed]

http://www.independent.ie/national-...6416000-over-bad-mortgage-advice-2188423.html

Best of luck


----------



## MyAdviser (29 Aug 2011)

Hi, one point is to check if the correct process was followed. If the advice was to be cautious or balanced and they sold a bank product which was high risk then that is a clear problem for the bank even if they pointed out the risk. Advice is meant to relate to the clients needs and this along with other required steps should be considered. The Ombudsmans case history has quite a few examples where high risk was sold to low risk people. In 2007 and the years prior these type of investments were sold easily and the process of advice went out the window. Hope this helps and don't let them tell you the risk was all yours. Kind regards Michael


----------



## Bedlam (7 Sep 2011)

One problem with the Ombudsman's Office is the 6 year rule appears to be catching a lot of people


----------



## mercman (8 Sep 2011)

Bedlam said:


> One problem with the Ombudsman's Office is the 6 year rule appears to be catching a lot of people



Doesn't exist in this case as advice given in 2007 (4 years ago)


----------



## Bronte (9 Sep 2011)

Bedlam said:


> One problem with the Ombudsman's Office is the 6 year rule appears to be catching a lot of people


 
Does that mean the ombudsman can only investigate mis selling where the product has been purchased in the last 6 years?  This can't be right?


----------



## Bedlam (9 Sep 2011)

Yes that is the case and I was making it as a general point that a lot of people are not aware of this fact and that they are being caught by it when they actually go to the Ombudsman


----------



## abagail (20 Nov 2013)

Bedlam said:


> Yes that is the case and I was making it as a general point that a lot of people are not aware of this fact and that they are being caught by it when they actually go to the Ombudsman



 +1.
 However,  I wonder could someone argue that the Ombudsman should investigate the case based on the bank on investigating complaints received in the past year or so?   
 In other words, say a bank made mistakes 8 years ago.  ( outside the 6 year period).  A borrower complains and asks for an explanation from the bank 6 or 12 months ago.  The bank will not co-operate or offer any explanation.  Could the borrower complain ( to the Ombudsman ) about inappropriate behaviour by the bank  6 or 12 months ago  (in not investigating the events of 7 or 8 years ago )?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Nov 2013)

A customer can complain about maladministration.

If a bank refuses to respond to correspondence, then you should complain to the bank itself first.

I am not sure that the Ombudsman would spend much time on a complaint about a bank not  issuing a letter to you telling you that you were outside the 6 year time limit. 

Brendan


----------



## Gerry Canning (26 Nov 2013)

Be very very clear , if the product you complain about was sold on or before 26th Nov 2007 , you will be caught under the 6 year Statute of Limitations.
This 6 year rule is very hard to bypass. 

If you have NOT logged your complaint within 6 years ,you are in trouble ! Sorry.


----------



## twofor1 (27 Nov 2013)

Might be of interest to some;

In 2012 I became aware that I had been overcharged by a provider for life cover for the previous 12 years.

I followed the complaints procedure and ended up with the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman would not investigate my complaint, quoting the 6 year rule and saying it was 6 years from when the conduct complained of occurred and not from when one became aware of it.

I resubmitted my complaint stating that while the conduct complained of first occurred 12 years ago, this same conduct was repeated every year thereafter to date, but my complaint now only relates to the previous 6 years.

This was accepted by the Ombudsman who investigated and recently issued his finding upholding my complaint.

6 years refunds are far better than no refunds.


----------



## Gerry Canning (9 Dec 2013)

Two for 1.

Congrats on getting 6 years .
What your case confirms is the inconsistency in Ombudsmans office . Hangs on who you get and if there is an acceptance of same conduct every year.

I would LOVE to have my ppi clients get even 6 years back.


----------



## mercman (9 Dec 2013)

Gerry Canning said:


> Be very very clear , if the product you complain about was sold on or before 26th Nov 2007 , you will be caught under the 6 year Statute of Limitations.
> This 6 year rule is very hard to bypass. .



Interesting, but what happens if the investment product was sold to an investor prior to 2007, but new information only came to light very recently.

The information concerned, refers to preferential terms being offered to some investors but not to others, within a similar time - scale.


----------



## mrbea (4 Jan 2014)

mercman said:


> Interesting, but what happens if the investment product was sold to an investor prior to 2007, but new information only came to light very recently.


 
 I guess that may depend on who you get in the Ombudsmans office, and how they interpret the 6 year rule?  I think the Ombudsmans office has a moral duty to investigate matters over 6 years ago if new information came to light recently and the customer is bearing an ongoing loss in to the future as a result off the alleged wrongdoing.


----------



## Bronte (7 Jan 2014)

There is no way the ombudsman works on the basis of moral duty.


----------



## Gerry Canning (7 Jan 2014)

The Ombudsman decisions on 6 year rule are @ best inconsistent.From the above threads you may have a claim IF you can show your new info is within 6 years.
Worryingly Banks tell you , you can go to Ombudsman even if outside the 6 years and they knowing full well you will not be heard by Ombudsman.

Has anyone any more suggestions on how to make the Ombudsman do his job properly? He fails on too many counts.


----------



## Raging Bull (12 Jan 2014)

Statue of limitations is 6 years FSO cant investigate issues beyond that even if they only came to light now

If its a case of fraud the statute increases to 12 years but you have to go to a Court so cant use FSO


----------



## Gerry Canning (13 Jan 2014)

Raging Bull said:


> Statue of limitations is 6 years FSO cant investigate issues beyond that even if they only came to light now
> 
> If its a case of fraud the statute increases to 12 years but you have to go to a Court so cant use FSO


 ..................................................................................

Yet 2for1 succeeded in a claim .
Seems to be an inconsistency here .
Also Banks/Providers still insist on (bluffing)customers that they can go via Ombudsman when Banks/Providers know Raging Bull is correct!

Need the 6 year rule amended.


----------



## twofor1 (13 Jan 2014)

Gerry Canning said:


> Yet 2for1 succeeded in a claim .
> Seems to be an inconsistency here



My complaint for 12 years was rejected by the Ombudsman because of the 6 year rule.

I resubmitted my complaint stating that although the conduct complained of first occurred 12 years ago, this same conduct was repeated every year thereafter to date, but my complaint now relates to the previous 6 years only.

This was then within the Ombudsman’s remit and he investigated.


----------



## Gerry Canning (13 Jan 2014)

2for 1..."The same conduct kept repeating hence you could claim for 6 years.

On most cases your circumstances do not apply 
EG. 
On a Payment Protection Policy sale(PPI) , the conduct happens on the Day you get the policy so there is nofurther mis-conduct from then on.
Sadly this means the 6 year rule still applies to most mis-conduct.

If I am wrong please advise,


----------



## twofor1 (13 Jan 2014)

Gerry Canning said:


> If I am wrong please advise,



Hi Gerry,

I have no idea, I have not followed the PPI discussion in detail, so can’t comment.

Your post 22 above appears to suggest an inconsistency in the application of the 6 year rule by the Ombudsman, in that he investigated my complaint even though the conduct complained of occurred more than 6 years ago.

I am simply clarifying that;

The Ombudsman refused to investigate my initial complaint as the conduct complained of occurred more than 6 years ago.

The Ombudsman did investigate when I submitted a new complaint relating to the previous 6 years only, as this complaint was then within his remit.

I cannot see any inconsistency on the Ombudsman’s part here.


----------



## Gerry Canning (14 Jan 2014)

Two for one; Thanks for response it intrigues me.

On ppi the Ombudsman seems only to refer to the initial sales process. Anything from then on is of no consequence.So if initial sale is over 6 years = tough!

On yours it maybe that some important change to your terms was made within 6 years ,meaning that the New initial date moves within 6 years.

Consistently Ombudsman applies the miss-sell only from the date of signing/inception.He does not move the miss-sell on.

I think I can check your case if you give me the Ombudsmans ref number. 
(I would love to look at it)


----------



## mercman (14 Jan 2014)

Depending on the actual amount involved, it might be best to have legal opinion concerning this matter.


----------

