Mis-selling losers can still claim refund

Personal Finance Editor,David Prosser
Friday 29 July 2005 19:00 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

David Cresswell, a spokesman for the Ombudsman, rejected claims by City solicitor Reynolds Porter Chamberlain that a case it had brought would finally end the personal pension scandal.

Millions of investors wrongly sold personal pensions in the Nineties were originally given until March 2000 to complain. However, the Ombudsman is still dealing with 100 unusual cases a year, where savers never received notification of the deadline, for example, or where particularly untypical issues applied.

Reynolds Porter Chamberlain has won an appeal against an Ombudsman decision that a pension mis-selling complaint could be heard under standard financial services industry rules, rather than through the review of pension mis-selling. "This is a significant victory for the industry," a spokesman said. "More than 10 years after the Pensions Review started, the decision in this case finally marks the long-awaited end to pension mis-selling compensation."

But Cresswell said: "This is an extrapolation from one case - there is no landmark decision because each case is considered on its own merits."

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in