Investors via Royal Skandia into KS&F

  • Damo1979
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Sun, 12/10/2008 - 08:20

EDITED by ng - email address removed - Please read this

Hi all
If you invested via Royal Skandia into KS&F then join this sub group by emailing *****
We are trying to gain momentum through Royal Skandia to help our situation.

Regards

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

reality check people!

  • humphrey
  • 10/10/08 01/03/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 18:44

Any bond holder who was sold a product bought it through an IFA, as far as I know you could not buy direct.

Your complaint is against the seller YOUR IFA.

If the insurance companies are at fault you can bet your bottom dollar your IFA's PI Insurers will chase them , but that is their job, not yours.

You need to take action against your IFA to start the process.

So far about ten of us have done this using Michael Kennedy from Pannones in Manchester, and of the ten there are startling similarities to give us very good grounds to take action against the IFA's concerned.

If you want more information then contact pannones or me please.

It makes sense in using a firm that will probably do nothing else this year than deal with our issue.

Those who are sitting on the sidelines waiting for the 29th to happen, have nothing to fear, it is likely that there will be further delay, but we deserve our money back now, if the bank then sorts it out , then the PII's can have their money then.


What the Skandia group has failed to do and what should be done

  • digger
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/12/2008 - 09:37

I really don’t want to add to the general feeling of gloom and hopelessness that seems to be gripping our group but I do feel that it’s time to take a hard look at our present situation. It seems to me that, as a group, we have achieved virtually nothing. Specifically:

  1. We have failed to reach any consensus regarding key issues, particularly the issue of who is primarily at fault, the life companies marketing the portfolio bond or the IFA’s advising clients to invest in an unprotected bond.

  2. We have failed to gain support for the idea of taking legal action against any of the parties.

  3. We have failed to start gathering essential information we would need in order to put forward a valid claim for compensation against either a life company or an IFA.

  4. We have failed to establish exactly when IFA’s were told about the lack of protection for cash deposits held in a portfolio bond (see the recent comment by ‘Depressed’). .

  5. We have failed to realistically assess the chances of getting any compensation from IFA’s through a PI insurance claim.

  6. We have failed to obtain answers to a number of crucial questions regarding the disclosure of key facts by both the life companies and IFA’s.

  7. We have failed to obtain essential information regarding IOM regulatory requirements.

  8. We have failed to make contact with any relevant IOM agency or regulatory authority.

  9. We have failed to obtain legal advice on certain aspects of commercial law, particularly the law of contracts.

  10. We have failed to attract into our group more than a small percentage of the total number of bondholders who had deposits with KSF (IOM).

  11. We have failed to develop a single, coherent and user-friendly website for our group discussions. I personally seem to find comments relevant to our concerns scattered all over the KSF Action Group website.

  12. We have failed to set up an archive of all the documents we would need to support a claim for compensation.

  13. We have failed to set up any kind of coordinating committee.

  14. We have failed to find a permanent manager for our group.

  15. We have failed to determine what would be the best route and the best procedure for making a claim for compensation.

  16. We have failed to set up any kind of review process for periodically evaluating our situation.

  17. We have failed to set up a fund to cover the cost of legal consultations.

With regard to legal advice, I have myself recently consulted a top corporate lawyer and his view is that, on the evidence presented, there is a reasonably good case to make against the life companies. He didn’t think that action against IFA’s would achieve very much, although he thinks we should keep this route open. For obvious reasons, I cannot disclose much detail about what he said but he left me in no doubt about the need to firm up our position very considerably before even thinking of taking legal action. Unfortunately, I was left with the impression that his charges would be far too high for us to be able to afford, even as a group. He did say, however, that, if we were to approach another (more affordable) firm, we should first ensure that we have a very well-researched presentation to make. If we have to rely on a law firm to do all the basic research for us, the cost would increase considerably. He also said that realistically we would probably have only one crack at winning a claim for compensation. A failed claim might create a precedent, so any precipitous or ill-prepared action by any one of us could ruin things for all of us.

It is obviously premature at the present time to take any kind of legal action. It would be very foolish of us, however, if we did not start preparing a solid, well-researched case for compensation.


i have not failed

  • barbarajee
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 15:04

what a depressing post. i have not failed. i have succeeded in starting procedings against my ifa. i have gathered loads of information for my case. i have 14 files full of reports stating how fragile the icelantic banking system was and i am expecting 100% of my money back.


Skandia response to our complaint - new brochure came to light!

  • depressed S
  • 18/10/08 n/a (free)
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 04:50

We have received a couple of letters from Skandia after we sent an official complaint letter to them stating as a main point, that the marketing liturature we recieved misled is into thinking cash depositors were covered by the protection scheme upto £50,000 per policy holder. Also that we were not aware at all of the money not being held under ourselves as individuals but going into a corporate account.

Skandia, with a long letter shooting blame at anywhere but themselves, also sent us a photocopy of a brochure titled "Policyholder protection - isle of man; questions and answers : For Financial Advisors only', that clearly states on page 3 that there is no possibility of claiming under the protection scheme on cash deposits placed within a bond, or any other element within that goes into receivership.

If we had seen this brochure prior to taking out the EIB with Skandia, we would not have moved our cash savings, as they would have been far better protected at the UK high street bank where they were residing at the time. It was not labelled for end client use - but give far more accurate definitions than the marketing brochure we received that just states all is covered under the protection scheme which is the most secure place to put your money (paraphrasing)...

However the document they sent us has a print date of June 2008 on it. We took out the bond in March 2008.

I have scanned the brochure as a PDF if anyone wishes to see a copy of it.

So I am asking of fellow depositors - Did any of you see sight of this brochure from your IFA or Skandia directly? What date was written on it?

Needless to say, if this brochure was in general circulation to IFA's in March 2008, I will have a firm case against my IFA for withholding important facts about the bond before signing the contract.

Thank you all in advance for helping out on this point.


Policyholder protection - isle of man; questions and answers

  • hkbased
  • 26/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 01:19

Hi depressed S,

Would it be possible to send a scanned version of the document by email (should be avaliable in the contact details section) as I would like to take a look. I too was not warned of such things as the lack to deposit protection when sold the Skandia EIB. Many thanks in advance. hkbased.


Policyholder protection

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 16:19

Hi depressed S

Could I please have a copy of this document too.


Can I have a copy too please

  • madmax836
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 28/01/2009 - 17:15

Hi

I would appreciate a scanned copy too please. many thanx to you


Policy protection

  • Blue
  • 30/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/12/2008 - 19:48

We took out our bond in July and had no sight or information regarding the details of the Policyholder Protection. Could we have a copy too please.


Policyholder protection document

  • digger
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/12/2008 - 10:01

This is all very relevant and I would be grateful if you could let me have a copy of the document you refer to.


Skandia response

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 05:21

We are in the same situation regarding miss-selling from our IFA.
Our IFA recommended us to invest in KSF IOM through a bond via Royal Skandia. He always mentioned the security of having this bond with RS in IOM, now we found that the security does not exist and that our funds are held in a corporate account. IFA mentioned again is September that our funds were covered 90% under all circumstances, we found now that this is also not true.

Just after our KSF IOM funds were frozen and we inquired our IFA again abou the coverage, he sent an email to Royal Skandia and received a reply with a brochure named "stock market volatility and current economic turmoil" explaining the degree of coverage (or lack of covrage) but with no date on it.

We are working on our complaint letter to our IFA

Regards
Horacio


Skandia / IFA

  • gazfuk
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 08:07

Hello,

We are in the exact same position, having been informed our funds were 90% covered, but no details. We were never shown the document referred to above re "corporate funds". We have taken no action to this point against either Skandia or the IFA, pending the behind the scenes work to save the bank by IoM Government.


Same position too !!

  • madmax836
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 08:14

Only seen the document from my IFA after the event.!!!!

Also waiting to see what RS are going to de before I contemplate next move


Same again!!

  • barnie
  • 19/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 12:25

I am also in the same position.
I believe that both Skandia and my IFA are guilty of mis-selling.
Have met with my lawyer who believes I have a good case against my IFA, but may have difficulty re suing Skandia.
The conclusion was to wait and see exactly how much of my deposit is lost before taking action.


Skandia vs. IFA

  • digger
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 04:42

I have consulted a top corporate lawyer and got the opposite response. He thinks we have a reasonably good case against Skandia but feels it might be difficult to make a solid case against an IFA a) because they don't normally publish any information or comment about the products they recommend, b) because they conduct much of their business on the telephone, so there will be no written evidence of what he may have said or not said, c) because the IFA may not have any indemnty insurance, especially if he/she is operating outside the UK, d) because if a claim for compensation had to go through a PI insurer, the insurer would certainly want very firm evidence, and e) because the IFA may not have been fully informed by Skandia at the time you invested in the bond about the lack of protection for bond depositors.


So where are all the IFAs??

  • barnie
  • 19/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 20:09

Digger,

From your lawyers comments it is obvious that if we have a reasonable case against Skandia then so do all the IFAs who sold us this product.

So where are they all? Why aren't they grouping and taking action? Why aren't they evident within this action group?
Surely they should be getting together to at least lobby their governing body - the FSA - regarding their (and our) case.

Come on all you IFAs! We know that you can't be picking up any commission at the moment from the bonds that you sold us, but if you want any chance of getting your commission again get together, support the Depositors Action Group and let us know what you are doing!!!


Support from IFAs

  • digger
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 17/12/2008 - 05:04

Good question! I have seen no support from any IFAs, although several of them have insisted that they were not told by Royal Skandia that cash deposits would be placed in a corporate account in the name of RS and therefore not covered by the IOM DCS. I think it would help our case enormously if we could get at least some IFAs to publicly supprt our claim that the EIB was mis-sold. I doubt if they will do this unless they are told that they will dropped by their existing clients if they don't.


My impression is that our IFA

  • depressed S
  • 18/10/08 n/a (free)
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 17/12/2008 - 05:25

My impression is that our IFA is stalling on any definite opinion until the court finally rules on an outcome. They will then react from there. Amazingly their view on it is very optimistic that all funds will be returned..If this ends up not being the case as most of us fear on this forum, I am sure we will then see some movement from all IFA's.


Royal Skandia - Same for us too

  • Blue
  • 30/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 21:24

We, too, are in the same position as all of you. We have just sent a very questioning letter to Royal Skandia (second one) with a copy to our IFA and MP. Hopefully, a miracle may happen and things will be resolved to our satisfaction. However, we would be prepared to join in any Skandia group action should the need arise.
Blue


Life Insurance Co. & interim pay

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 28/11/2008 - 17:02

Does somebody know how the process of an interim payment could work for the ones that held a Bond through a life insurance company?

I wonder if the corporate account that the Life Insurance Company holds with KSF IOM will receive the same treatment as the rest of the depositors with more than £ 50K.

Any feedback is appreciated


Life Insurance Co. & interim pay

  • rousey
  • 21/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 28/11/2008 - 18:34

That is a question i have been asking myself too.
Does the life insurance company get all the money back and then distribute the £20,000 corporate cover and keep the rest for itself or does it work the same for every individual investment that was totalled into the one coprporate account


Royal Skandia

  • mjpyrah
  • 21/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 10/11/2008 - 17:38

Count me in


Life companies' negligence

  • digger
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 09:57

I am quoting below an extract from a Citywire report by Iain Martin, which some of you may not have seen.

The report makes the same point that I and others have already made in this forum regarding the negligence of life companies such as AXA and Royal Skandia. It is good to know that at least some IFA's are on our side. We should seek as much support from them as possible. They know more about this than we do.

LIFE COMPANIES UNDER FIRE OVER KAUPTHING FALLOUT

By Iain Martin | 09:30:00 | 21 October 2008

"Adviser Paul Ferguson (pictured) has hit out at life companies for not spelling out the risk when investments in an offshore bond’s portfolio fail.

Life companies did not explain the risk of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) failing to the 1,400 consumers who deposited almost £200 million with the Iceland-owned bank, said Ferguson, managing director of Goring-based Winser Financial Services.

The life companies’ key facts illustrations explained what compensation consumers could claim if it defaulted but not what would happen to deposits if banks like Kaupthing failed, he said. ‘If you are, say, investing £100,000, then tell me everything I need to know. That is what key facts illustrations are meant to do,’ said Ferguson. ‘It doesn’t say you are going from personal investors into a corporate investor in a pooled investment. That is what happened.’

When Ferguson’s client instructed AXA to deposit £104,000 with Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander through his Evolution bond, he ceased to be the legal owner of the cash. Bondholders would have been entitled to £50,000 compensation from the Manx government if they had deposited money directly. Now it is up to the life offices to chase the bank’s administrator, Ernst & Young.......

NOTE THE VITAL POINT BEING MADE HERE: ".... HE (i.e.THE CLIENT) CEASED TO BE THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE CASH. THAT IS TO SAY, THE LEGAL OWNER BECAME THE INSURANCE COMPANY!!!!


not true

  • barbarajee
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 08:40

it is not true, you are still the legal owner of your cash, the insurance company is simply the trustee.


not true !!! please be careful

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 08:45

Please, don't post these comments unless they are correct - you mislead people.
The relationship between the policyholder and the Insurance Company is a contractual one.

The Insurance company is the legal owner of the assets. The policyholder's right to those assets is determined by the terms of the contract of Insurance.


surprise?

  • mrp1
  • 01/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 16/11/2008 - 12:45

surprised that the adviser is just trying to apportion blame away from himself?No. What did we pay them so much commission up front for? Just to do some admin to help applying for the bond? No so that they could research, fact find and advise. The life companies put in their literature info on the compensation regarding THEIR products. The fact that my FA didn't research what he recommended me to invest into within that makes me think i paid them for nothing. The amount of people that work in skandia and the amount i pay them in charges vs. the few people that work at my fa's office and the considerable amount i paid upfront to them - clearly being an FA must be a job to have if you can earn so much and then wash your hands of responsibility.


The reason an insurance bond

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/11/2008 - 12:20

The reason an insurance bond provides its benefits is that it alienates the assets of the cash and they belong to the Insurance company. The bond holders right to these assets is a contractual one and linked to the value of these assets.

This is a fundamental basis of the planning.

If an IFA didn't know this then they shouldnt be in business.

There have been many times when a linked asset (usually a CIS) has lost all/most value and accordingly the contractual obligation of the insurance company is linked to such value.

The fact the IFAs didnt know this means they are either exhibiting "Nelsonian knowledge" or are incompetent.

Of course IFAs are trying to blame someone else; yet again as before in history it would appear they have failed to provide good advice to their clients.

The assets of a bond are always held in the name of the Insurance Company, they all knew this. They were just too lazy to look at what this meant.

Roll on the FSA retail distribution review I say.

Insurance companies only sell bonds thro IFAs
IFAs are subject to regulation by the FSA
If the IFAs didnt understand a product then they shouldnt have sold it.

Sue/Complain your IFA. If they claim they are ignorant because of the lack of information from the Insurance Company that is their problem.

They are trying to create a big smoke screen, and shift blame to others IMO.


Negligence of insurance companies: further comment

  • digger
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 10/11/2008 - 05:34

Manx-person seems to be suggesting that insurance companies bear no responsibility whatsoever for failing to reveal vital information regarding the Isle of Man Depositors Compensation Scheme. I don’t accept this at all. The insurance companies must have been well aware that their sales brochures would be widely used by IFA’s to sell their bond products. They even allow potential investors to download copies of their brochures from their websites, so they themselves are, in effect, engaged in direct sales promotion. Most investors are quite inexperienced and don’t know what questions they should ask their IFA’s. They rely heavily on the sales literature they are provided with.

Many IFA’s, it seems, are insisting that they themselves were not aware that the IOM compensation scheme did not cover their clients’ cash deposits. It is all very well (with hindsight) to say that they should have known this. But why should they have known this if the insurance companies did not inform them? As far as I am aware, insurance companies selling portfolio bond products normally require investors to use an IFA approved by them. This being so, they have a responsibility to ensure that their approved IFA’s are provided with all the key facts relating to the bond products they are selling. They should also provide them with strict guidelines regarding the full disclosure of these key facts.

I agree, of course, that IFA’s should not have advised their clients at any time during the past 12 months or so to place a substantial deposit with KFS (IOM). I also agree that if any of their clients were holding deposits with KSF (IOM) in the weeks running up to the collapse of the bank, they should have urged them as a matter of urgency to transfer the money to some other bank (as, indeed, some IFA’s did). But this has nothing to do with the point at issue here, which is the whether or not insurance companies were negligent in failing to provide potential investors with vital information about their bond products in their sales brochures.

It is not only vital information regarding the IOM compensation scheme that insurance companies failed to reveal in their sales brochures and websites. They also failed to explain properly how their portfolio bonds work. What manx-person says about cash introduced as a premium being moved onto the balance sheet of the insurer is no doubt correct but I have not seen this information in any insurance company document, much less any explanation of what the implications of this are for the bondholder. If this means that the insurer is contractually entitled to put the money in a bank account in the name of the insurer rather than the name of the bondholder, without the knowledge or explicit consent of the bondholder, then this is yet another example of a key and essential fact that the insurers failed to mention either in their sales brochures or in the terms of their agreement with the bondholder (see, for example, the Royal Skandia document entitled “Details of the Executive Investment Bond”, which sets out the terms of the Agreement between RSK and the bondholder).

One final point. I am surprised that the regulatory authority in the Isle of Man has not insisted on full disclosure by insurance companies of the key facts we are talking about. My guess would be that the regulations DO require (in general terms) that ALL key facts be disclosed but it is then left to the insurers to decide what is key and what is relevant. In my view, it would be very difficult for any insurer to argue that the facts under discussion are not of crucial importance. This being so, some insurers may well be guilty of failing to meet their legal obligations under IOM regulations.
.


roywigzell - further comments re insurance bonds

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 10/11/2008 - 08:45

I think you make this too complicated.
There are 2 issues here.
(1) Disclosure re the Bond
(2) Disclosure re the Investments (cash fund being an investment)

The bond merely acts as a conduit for the policyholder to invest in investments.

You should remember that extensive technical documentation is provided to the IFAs on both of the above.

I own a firm that is licensed as an IA, we provide bond products (we havent used any other the insurers bonds on the isle of man involved in this debacle.

When I have explained to clients the advantages and disadvantages of using a bond product, I have used a structured approach that explains
(i) Legal alientation of assets
(ii) Contractual nature of relationship with the insurer
(iii) Rationale of investment selection to meet risk criteria
(iv) Explanation of the "capital at risk" factors for each investment

This makes a "harder sell" other IFAs dont explain all this, they rely on glossy brochures.

We dont have as many conversions as other IFAs - and I think our clients make less of a return, but lose less than with other IFAs

We are also involved in reviewing technical documentation in funds, when they are launched, changed and promoted.

There are extensive technical resourses available within the Insurers able to explain and model any scenario for an advisor.

So quite simply, my views arent guesses.

Some IFAs have decide to take a short route to profit, by explaining the benefits but not the disadvantages and are now scurrying to blame others - yet again (history repeats itself)

Are IFAs salesmen or professional advisers - thats the crux of this matter


Manx-person: I agree but you still miss the main point

  • digger
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 11/11/2008 - 09:54

I found your comments interesting and revealing and I can now understand why you
are so inclined to place the blame on other IFA’s who may have acted less professionally than yourself.

I agree with you that many (most?) IFA’s failed to provide their clients with adequate information relating a) to the Isle of Man compensation scheme and b) to the way portfolio bonds are structured, particularly with regard to cash deposits. If, as you say, IFA’s were provided with ample technical literature by the insurance companies, then they do, indeed, have a good deal to answer for.

However, the fact that many IFA’s may have been negligent and/or incompetent does not exonerate the insurance companies. It is their glossy sales brochures and their policy documents that were used by IFA’s to sell their bond products. These brochures and documents were not intended primarily for IFA’s; they were intended for potential investors and, not surprisingly, IFA’s just passed them on to their clients without adding any additional information or explanation. They no doubt assumed that this is exactly what the insurance companies wanted and expected them to do.

The fundamental issue at stake here is whether insurance companies failed to disclose vital information regarding their bond products, not only in their sales literature but also in their contractual agreements. There is no doubt in my mind that they demonstrably did fail to do so. The fact that some IFA’s may have given bad advice is beside the point. And even if they did give bad advice, it would be virtually impossible prove that they acted illegally.


Who is to blame - the insurance companies or the FSA's?

  • digger
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/11/2008 - 13:08

You seem to be missing a vital point here, manx-person. It is true that FSA’s have a professional duty to provide prospective bondholders with as much relevant information as they can relating to the portfolio bonds they sell. But so do the insurance companies! After all, the bonds are their products, not the FSA’s. Like all salesmen, FSA’s rely on the information provided to them by the company whose product they are selling and they just pass this information on to their clients. It is abundantly clear to all of us now, that the sales brochures provided to FSA’s by the insurance companies and subsequently passed on to us were seriously deficient and misleading.

The situation would be no different in any other commercial field. Take the case of car manufacturers. They, too, sell their products via sales representatives, who use the sales brochures provided to them by the manufacturers. They don’t produce their own sales brochures. And if, as it sometimes happens, there is a fatal flaw in a car that is not mentioned in the sales brochure, it is the car manufacturer, not the sales representatives, who is held responsible.


Correction to previous comment

  • digger
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 10/11/2008 - 01:59

Oops! Sorry about the typing error. For FSA read IFA.


Well the analogy with a car

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/11/2008 - 14:43

FSAs are salesman (I assume you mean IFAs) - this is the problem, perhaps they are, but they should be Independent Financial Advisers, and should advised clients, indepdendently on financial advisers.

Bonds necessarily mean that the cash introduced as a premium moves onto the balance sheet of the insurer, and your access to that cash, or the equivalent is a contractual right linked to the value of that asset.

That is how a bond works - If the IFA didnt understand that, simply they shouldnt be recommending the product.

Well the analogy with a car is only partly relevant.

There are a wide range of investments available with a bond provider.
Also a relevant factor to consider is often their are no 'switch charges'
The IFA puts together the asset selection.
They should know the compensation and security characteristics of each investment.

For example, Skandia have a range of cash/money market funds, and fixed interest funds.

The selection of these funds was made by the IFA, presumably on the instruction of the client.

Thus using the car analogy, the vehicle is built using the parts selected by the IFA.

Why did the IFA selected a single sink for the cash - you will have to ask him that.

Why in March 2008 when the CDS spreads increased didn't he suggest a switch?

Returning to your car analogy. If you bought a car from the dealership and there was a fatal flaw, your first recourse would be against the dealership, for example under the implied terms provided in the Sales of Goods Act.

Issues of privity would usually prevent you having a contractual claim against the maufacturer.

Product liability, which I think you are referring to would be a more difficult claim, and would require negligence to be proven usually.

The key to this is a prudent IFA shouldn't have put you in this position, at all IMO.


Well the analogy with a car

  • rousey
  • 21/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/11/2008 - 14:47

Funds have also been put into a Royal skandia cash deposit fund. This fund is made up of 10 to 15 banks and are allocated cash by skandia itself. skandia claims that it does not invest or offer investment advice.
But it outs our money where it seems fit. thi smoney too is also only covered by the corporate cover and the IFA or investor have no idea where it is invested.

I find your negativity unhelpful in the extreme. this site is for people who have lost life savings through no fault of their own. If you want to be helpful try and help us get our money back!!


rousey - analogy with a car

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/11/2008 - 14:55

My comments aren't negative. They just dont agree with yours.

I think the best chance of recourse is to the IFA's.

I am aware that RS have a cash fund. The fund managers will need to explain why they didn't react on market reports about the CDS spread. I wonder if they may make amends for this.

I have been doing what I can in this respect, I have been to the Sefton bunker, met with a number of people, shared my knowledge.

If you think saying "Yes sue the Insurance company" is positive then I am sorry; I don't agree and have taken the time quite carfully to explain my reasons.

My hope is that all of the depositors get their money back.

And I think that the chances of that happening a much higher this week than last.


rousey - analogy with a car

  • rousey
  • 21/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/11/2008 - 15:00

why?? please explain your reasons manx person


rousey - lots of reasons

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/11/2008 - 15:04

have a read of the posts of expat.
Whilst some people have been threatening litigation, finding advocates on the Isle of Man etc

Others have been looking at the financial aspects, meeting with Government and working at soltuions

read the London Trnasport news re KSFUK

The ideas for controlled run off.

And other things not reported.


Spending a lot of time on here for no return!?

  • skint
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 10/11/2008 - 10:03

Hi MP, I think the reason why people are reluctant to sue their IFA is a moral one, as I for one do not believe I have been deliberately ripped off or "scammed" or even negligently sold the policy by my IFA - he and many other, (unlike you) are in the same boat.

My thoughts on Scandia however are that however "legal" their position is that they misrepresented insurance that it turns out apparently can never be invoked, and despite having lost our money continue unrepentantly to trade, pay their staff and turn a profit. Their silence on this matter is unbelievable and matched only by your vociferation. Their amoral attitude to customers, although possibly "legal" defies all natural humane laws and is typical of the corporate attitude that has brought the economy to this state in the first place, so yes - I could sue my IFA for a share of his indemnity insurance (if they pay), but I would feel like a **** as he is hardly the real culprit here!


You state that your IFA " is

  • lastpubrunner
  • 13/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 18/11/2008 - 14:46

You state that your IFA " is hardly the real culprit here!"

My parents have a one bond with Royal Skandia (Unfortunately!).

They went to see their IFA, with a brief that they wanted to put their money somewhere with the lowest possible risk. They actually told the IFA that they did not want to put their money in a financial institution based in either Ireland or Iceland. Low risk had to be the primary priority !!! They weren't particularly bothered about interest; high security, however, was all important to them.

Their IFA sent them a letter (on his headed paper) stating that their money would be guaranteed to the value of 90%. This document (which they still have) 'swung the balance' and was the sole reason for them putting money into Royal Skandia.

What is an IFA for, but to provide professional advice ? He was paid VERY well for his 'expert advice'.

Do you really believe that they should feel sorry for him ?

Shouldn't he have carried out proper research into the products he was selling ? Many people stand to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds based on such advice.

Sadly, my parents did not become aware of the situation until Monday 20th October, when they were notified by post. (The rest of the family until then, were unaware of their financial arrangements). My parents contacted their IFA on Tuesday 22nd October. He caimed to be TOTALLY UNAWARE of the situation regarding Kaupthing Singer IOM !!! - Yes, even by the 22nd October he was unaware !!!

Does any one believe that my parents have a case against their IFA ? - I certainly do !

Their money had only been in a few months and they had only just retired - my father was working full-time until he retired at 78 !

They deserve better than this !


Spending a lot of time on here for no return!?

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 10/11/2008 - 11:44

I don't know what the title of your post means.

I you want your money back, if the worst happend and there is a default event; then I would suggest that if you do decide to sue anyone you would be better suing the person who has the greatest liability. There is also

The IFA isn;t in the same position as you - he doesnt stand to lose a portion of his funds, you are the investor not him. He has received the Commission for his services. An IFA should look further than any glossies provided by an instituion and undesr

I really do appreciate that you are in a difficult position here and I empathise and sympathise with you.


Sorry

  • skint
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 10/11/2008 - 12:18

Just had to get it off my chest.

It would be nice to know what Royal Skandia are doing on our behalfs (if anything), and as they can pass the loss straight onto us what incentive they have for doing anything.

I would be interested to know the result should anyone decide to sue their IFA however.


Sorry - no need (skint)

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 10/11/2008 - 12:37

You should remember that there is a Financial Ombudesman Serive in the Uk which can determine and resolve complaints from IFAs without recoursr to lawyers. but you might be advised to get a lawyer to draft your complaint.

Have a look at their website


Life companies negligence

  • rousey
  • 21/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 13:46

Exactly right and i am in the process of submitting an officail complaint to skandia regarding this.
The e-mail address is rskfmcomplaints(?)royalskandia [dot] com. I urge as many people as possible to do this.

I met with a rep from skandia and i could tell he was uncomfortable in this area. He asid he could understand if legal action was taken on this point. His only defence was that nobody had asked about this type of protection and we would have been told if we had been asked.This is not good enough as it is a hugely important factor in investing in bank deposits offshore.

My IFA who was presnet at the meeting also until a few weeks ago was unawre of ever haveing information from skandia re the above. He is willing to support us in this.

I urge people to take this further as this is the way forward for us in the absence of government or IMF help


Life company's negligence

  • digger
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/11/2008 - 11:47

I agree entirely that this is the way forward. However, we need to proceed cautiously and on the basis of sound legal advice., otherwise we run the risk of damaging our own case. There may well be a special way of proceeding with a complaint that would ensure the best possible outcome. I think it would be wise to get a competent lawyer to check over any complaint/representation made to Royal Skandia and to advise us on how to proceed.

Surely a group of us could get together and share the cost of a preliminary consultation with a corporate lawyer.


Life company's negligence

  • rousey
  • 21/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/11/2008 - 14:41

That would be the way forward.
I would be happy to contribute. I also would imagine there must be someone with legal background who has lost money in this way, who could give us a view on this.


axa

  • barbarajee
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 14:16

we have been to see axa in bristol who were the firm who put our money into a sipp which included a bond in singer friedlander kaupthing iom. so axa i suppose is like royal skandia.

they said they only act on the ifa instructions and are not at all responsible for giving advice. therefore, if an ifa instructed them to put money in a dodgy nigerian bank, they would just obey. it is the ifa who is responsible for issuing the instructions on behalf of their client.

i doubt whether any solicitor would take on a case involving suing axa. it would cost ,illions so i think everyone is barking up the wrong tree.


life companies v IFAs

  • barnie
  • 19/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 12:07

One just has to scan through the news articles in the 'news' section of this site -

Money marketing - Advisers attack life office support on offshore bonds
City Wire - Adviser anger over Alio claims about Iceland accounts
City Wire - IFAs to face huge PI claims over Kaupthing

  • to see that the life companies and IFAs are at each others throat over the lack of clarity regarding the protection of our money.

To me this constitutes an admission that there has been neligence towards us consumers, whoevers fault it is.

I agree with the point you are making about legal ownership of the funds. Recent correspondence with RSk
states 'Assets held in bank deposit accounts are held in the name of Royal Skandia and not in the name of the individual ...'.


Legal ownership of KSF(IOM) corporate deposits

  • digger
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 14:42

Legal ownership is the critical issue. It seems to me that if the legal owner is Royal Skandia, then it must be Royal Skandia, and not the individual depositors, that must seek to recover the money. And if they fail, then the loss is theirs, not ours.

It is vital that we get sound legal advice on this point.


legal ownership

  • barbarajee
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 10/11/2008 - 12:27

royal skandia is not the legal owner of your funds. they are simply the trustee.


legal ownership - not a trustee

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 10/11/2008 - 12:41

No, this is wrong.
The legal ownder is Skanida.
Your rights are contractual with Skanida,

the relationship of a policyholder to the insurance company is a contracutal one.

The fiunds are legally and beneficially owned by the insurance company.


no. not right

  • barbarajee
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 08:47

no, my partner is a solicitor and says this is not right. the funds belong to you only you can spend them. the insurance firm holds them in trust for you.