Why are policyholders receiving compensation now rather than at the end of the policy term? If they are retaining their policies are they able to benefit from any improvements in returns over time?
In most upheld cases the complainant was recommended an endowment which carried greater risks than they wanted to accept, or they were not made aware of the risks. So, in most cases, complainants do not tend to keep the policy as a repayment vehicle for a mortgage DISP App 1.3.2G and DISP App 1.2.15G state it is not unreasonable for firms to assume that a complainant will surrender their policy (without unreasonable cost) when calculating compensation, but also assert a complainant’s right to retain the policy. Anyone making the decision to keep an endowment policy after their complaint is upheld should be aware of the risks associated with the product. However, even if the policyholder should benefit from a future market upswing, this does not alter the history of the mis-sale, or the logic of any redress already paid. Finally, our guidance (DISP App1.5.10G) offers scope for firms to offer an alternative form of redress, such as an agreement to guarantee, or ‘underpin’ the retained po
Related Questions
- Why are policyholders receiving compensation now rather than at the end of the policy term? If they are retaining their policies are they able to benefit from any improvements in returns over time?
- If Digium relies on the community for development and other types of support, shouldn’t that community be able to benefit from using the term "Asterisk," just as they do the software?
- Why did eligible policyholders receive compensation? Was it in exchange for a policy?
