Related provisions for DISP App 3.7.16

1 - 20 of 40 items.

Search Term(s)

Filter by Topics

Filter by Modules

Filter by Documents

Filter by Keywords

Effective Period

Similar To

To access the FCA Handbook Archive choose a date between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2004 (From field only).

DISP App 1.2.1GRP
If there has been a failure to give compliant and proper advice, or some other breach of the duty of care, the basic objective of redress is to put the complainant, so far as is possible, in the position he would have been in if the inappropriate advice had not been given, or the other breach had not occurred. In many cases, although it must be a matter for inquiry and assessment in each individual case, this position is likely to have resulted in the complainant taking a repayment
DISP App 1.2.11GRP
12Firms may adopt streamlined processes to assist them in individual assessments of "sufficient means", but will have to satisfy themselves that the complainant's position is nevertheless protected. Firms will need to ensure that the complainant is given an opportunity to make an informed choice whether to accept the streamlined process, that the process itself is transparent, and that the firm is satisfied that the outcome would be fair to complainants.
DISP App 1.2.12GRP
12If a firm intends to make a deduction for all or any part of the lower endowment outgoings, the firm should explain clearly to the complainant in writing both how the 'sufficient means' test has been satisfied, including details of the information taken into account in reaching the decision, and how the deduction has been arrived at. The letter should further inform the complainant that if he is unhappy with the proposal to make a deduction, either in principle or as to the
DISP App 1.2.13GRP
12If a complainant puts forward a case that it would be unreasonable for a deduction to be made, the firm should reach a fair and objective determination on the facts of all relevant matters including those set out at DISP App 1.2.8 G and DISP App 1.2.9 G.
DISP App 1.2.15GRP
12It would not be unreasonable if a firm providing redress in these circumstances were to frame its offer of redress on the assumption that the complainant will agree to surrender the policy. However, firms should bear in mind that there may be circumstances where it is appropriate for the complainant to retain the policy, for example, where it is being retained as a savings vehicle.
DISP App 1.2.17GRP
12The standard approach to redress can be illustrated by the following examples, which show how redress would be calculated in certain hypothetical but typical scenarios. (Because the examples are illustrative, round numbers have been used for 'established facts' in each example. The payments should be taken as being made monthly: firms should not approximate by assuming that payments are made annually. If the complainant has benefited from MIRAS, the calculations should allow
DISP App 1.2.18GRP

12Table of examples of typical redress calculations

Example 1

Capital shortfall and higher endowment outgoings

Example 2

Capital shortfall partially offset by lower endowment mortgage outgoings

Example 3

Capital shortfall more than offset by lower endowment mortgage outgoings

Example 4

Capital surplus more than offset by higher endowment mortgage outgoings

Example 5

Capital surplus partially offset by higher endowment mortgage outgoings

Example 6

Capital surplus and lower endowment mortgage outgoings

Example 7

Low start endowment mortgage
DISP App 1.2.19GRP

12Example 1

Example 1

Capital shortfall and higher endowment mortgage outgoings

Background

Capital sum of £50,000

25 year endowment policy

Duration to date: 5 years

Endowment premium per month: £75

Established facts

Endowment surrender value:

£3,200

Capital repaid under equivalent repayment mortgage:

£4,200

Surrender value less capital repaid:

(£1,000)

Cost of converting from endowment mortgage to repayment mortgage:

(£200)

Total outgoings to date

Equivalent repayment mortgage (capital + interest + DTA life cover):

£21,950

Endowment mortgage (endowment premium + interest):

£22,250

Difference in outgoings (repayment - endowment):

(£300)

Basis of compensation

In this example, the complainant has suffered loss because the surrender value of the endowment is less than the capital repaid and also because of the higher total outgoings to date of the endowment mortgage relative to the repayment mortgage. The two losses and the conversion cost are therefore added together in order to calculate the redress.

Redress

Loss from surrender value less capital repaid:

(£1,000)

Loss from total extra outgoings under endowment mortgage:

(£300)

Cost of converting to repayment mortgage:

(£200)

Total loss:

(£1,500)

Therefore total redress is:

£1,500
DISP App 1.2.20GRP

12Example 2

Example 2

Capital shortfall partially offset by lower endowment mortgage outgoings

Background

Capital sum of £50,000

25 year endowment policy

Duration to date: 5 years

Endowment premium per month: £60

Established facts

Endowment surrender value:

£2,500

Capital repaid under equivalent repayment mortgage

£4,200

Surrender value less capital repaid under equivalent repayment mortgage:

(£1,700)

Cost of converting from endowment mortgage to repayment mortgage

(£300)

Total outgoings to date:

Repayment mortgage (capital + interest + DTA life cover):

£21,950

Endowment mortgage (endowment premium + interest):

£21,350

Difference in outgoings (repayment - endowment):

£600

Basis of Compensation

In this example, the complainant has suffered loss because the surrender value of the endowment is less than the capital repaid but has gained form the lower outgoings of the endowment mortgage to date. In calculating the redress the gain may be offset against the loss unless the complainant's particular circumstances are such that it would be unreasonable to take account of the gain.

Redress if it is not unreasonable to take account of the whole of the gain from lower outgoings

Loss from surrender value less capital repaid:

(£1,700)

Gain from total lower outgoings under endowment mortgage:

£600

Cost of converting to repayment mortgage:

(£300)

Net loss:

(£1,400)

Therefore total redress is:

£1,400

Redress if it is unreasonable to take account of gain from lower outgoings

Loss from surrender value less capital repaid:

(£1,700)

Gain from total lower outgoings under endowment mortgage:

Ignored*

Cost of converting to repayment mortgage:

(£300)

Net loss taken into account:

(£2,000)

Therefore total redress is:

£2,000

* In this example, and also in Examples 3, 7, 8 and 9, the complainant's circumstances are assumed to be such as to make it unreasonable to take account of any of the gain from lower outgoings.
DISP App 1.2.21GRP

12Example 3

Example 3

Capital shortfall more than offset by lower endowment mortgage outgoings

Background

Capital sum of £50,000

25 year endowment policy

Duration to date: 8 years

Endowment premium per month: £65

Established facts

Endowment surrender value:

£7,300

Capital repaid under equivalent repayment mortgage:

£7,600

Surrender value less capital repaid:

(£300)

Cost of converting from endowment mortgage to repayment mortgage:

(£200)

Total outgoings to date:

Repayment mortgage (capital + interest + DTA life cover):

£34,510

Endowment mortgage (endowment premium + interest):

£33,990

Difference in outgoings (repayment - endowment):

£520

Basis of Compensation

In this example, the complainant has suffered loss because the surrender value of the endowment is less than the capital repaid but has gained from the lower total outgoings of the endowment mortgage. In calculating redress the gain may be offset against the loss unless the complainant's particular circumstances are such that it would be unreasonable to take account of the gain.

Redress if it is not unreasonable to take account of the whole of the gain from lower outgoings

Loss from surrender value less capital repaid:

(£300)

Gain from total lower outgoings under endowment mortgage:

£520

Cost of converting to repayment mortgage:

(£200)

Net gain:

£20

Therefore, there has been no loss and no redress is payable.

Redress if it is unreasonable to take account of gain from lower outgoings

Loss from surrender value less capital repaid:

(£300)

Gain from total lower outgoings under endowment mortgage:

Ignored

Cost of converting to repayment mortgage:

(£200)

Net loss taken into account:

(£500)

Therefore total redress is:

£500
DISP App 1.2.22GRP

12Example 4

Example 4

Capital surplus more than offset by higher endowment mortgage outgoings

Background

Capital sum of £50,000

25 year endowment policy

Duration to date: 8 years

Endowment premium per month: £75

Established facts

Endowment surrender value:

£7,800

Capital repaid under equivalent repayment mortgage:

£7,600

Surrender value less capital repaid:

£200

Cost of converting from endowment mortgage to repayment mortgage:

(£250)

Total outgoings to date:

Repayment mortgage (capital + interest + DTA life cover):

£34,510

Endowment mortgage (endowment premium + interest):

£34,950

Difference in outgoings (repayment - endowment):

(£440)

Basis of Compensation

In this example, the complainant has suffered loss because of the higher total outgoings to date of the endowment mortgage but has gained because the surrender value of the endowment is greater than the capital repaid. Since the sum of the loss and the conversion cost is greater than the gain, the redress is calculated as the difference between the two.

Redress

Gain from surrender value less capital repaid:

£200

Loss from total extra outgoings under endowment mortgage:

(£440)

Cost of converting to repayment mortgage:

(£250)

Net loss:

(£490)

Therefore total redress is:

£490
DISP App 1.2.23GRP

12Example 5

Example 5

Capital surplus partially offset by higher endowment mortgage outgoings

Background

Capital sum of £50,000

25 year endowment policy

Duration to date: 10 years

Endowment premium per month: £75

Established facts

Endowment surrender value:

£11,800

Capital repaid under equivalent repayment mortgage

£9,700

Surrender value less capital repaid:

£2,100

Cost of converting from endowment mortgage to repayment mortgage:

(£300)

Total outgoings to date:

Repayment mortgage (capital + interest + DTA life cover):

£46,800

Endowment mortgage (endowment premium + interest):

£47,500

Difference in outgoings (repayment - endowment):

(£700)

Basis of Compensation

In this example, the complainant has suffered loss because of the higher total outgoings to date of the endowment mortgage relative to the repayment mortgage. However the sum of this and the conversion cost is less than the complainant's gain from the difference between the surrender value of the endowment and the capital repaid. Thus no redress is payable.

Redress

Gain from surrender value less capital repaid:

£2,100

Loss from total extra outgoings under endowment mortgage:

(£700)

Cost of converting to repayment mortgage:

(£300)

Net gain:

£1,100

Therefore, there has been no loss and no redress is payable.
DISP App 1.2.24GRP

12Example 6

Example 6

Capital surplus and lower endowment mortgage outgoings

Background

Capital sum of £50,000

25 year endowment policy

Duration to date: 10 years

Endowment premium per month: £65

Established facts

Endowment surrender value:

£10,100

Capital repaid under equivalent repayment mortgage

£9,700

Surrender value less capital repaid:

£400

Cost of converting from endowment mortgage to repayment mortgage:

(£200)

Total outgoings to date:

Repayment mortgage (capital + interest + DTA life cover):

£46,800

Endowment mortgage (endowment premium + interest):

£46,300

Difference in outgoings (repayment - endowment):

£500

Basis of Compensation

In this example, the complainant has gained both because the surrender value of the endowment is greater than the capital repaid and because of the lower total outgoings of the endowment mortgage. These gains are larger than the cost of converting to a repayment mortgage. Thus no further action is necessary.

Redress

As there has been no loss, no redress is payable.
DISP App 1.2.25GRP

12Example 7

Example 7

Low start endowment mortgage

Background

Capital sum of £50,000

25 year endowment policy

Duration to date: 10 years

Endowment premium per month: starting at £35 in first year, increasing by 20% simple on each policy anniversary, reaching £70 after five years and then remaining at that level.

Established facts:

Endowment surrender value:

£8,200

Capital repaid under equivalent repayment mortgage:

£9,700

Surrender value less capital repaid:

(£1,500)

Cost of converting from endowment mortgage to repayment mortgage:

(£250)

Total outgoings to date

Repayment mortgage (capital + interest + DTA life cover):

£46,800

Endowment mortgage (endowment premium + interest):

£45,640

Difference in outgoings (repayment minus endowment):

£1,160

Of this difference in outgoings, £800 arose in the five year period when the complainant was paying a low endowment premium.

Basis of compensation

In this example, the complainant has suffered loss because the surrender value of the endowment is less than the capital repaid but has gained from the lower total outgoings of the endowment mortgage. As in Example 3, in calculating redress the whole of the gain should be offset against the loss unless the complainant's particular circumstances are such that it would be unreasonable to do so. However, unlike Example 3, in a low start endowment mortgage the complainant may have chosen to pay a lower than usual premium in the early years (this would need to be established on the facts of the case). Where it has been established that the complainant chose to make lower payments, even if it is unreasonable to take account of the whole of the gain from total outgoings, the gain from paying a lower premium during the low start period is normally taken into account. In such cases the redress is calculated as the capital loss plus the conversion cost minus the total amount by which repayment mortgage outgoings would have exceeded the actual low start endowment mortgage outgoings during the five year low start period.

Redress if it is not unreasonable to take account of the whole of the gain from lower outgoings

Loss from surrender value less capital repaid:

(£1,500)

Gain from total lower outgoings under endowment mortgage:

£1,160

Cost of converting to repayment mortgage:

(£250)

Net loss:

(£590)

Therefore total redress is:

£590

Redress if it is unreasonable to take account of gain from lower outgoings

Loss from surrender value less capital repaid:

(£1,500)

Gain from total lower outgoings during low start period of endowment mortgage:

£800

Cost of converting to repayment mortgage:

(£250)

Net loss taken into account:

(£950)

Therefore total redress is:

£950
DISP App 1.6.1GRP
If, exceptionally under the guidance at DISP App 1.5.13 G to DISP App 1.5.21 G, cash or shares derived from a corporate event are to be taken into account when assessing loss and redress, cash should be valued at the amount actually received and shares should be valued at their issue price. In both cases there should be no addition for interest.3434
DISP App 1.6.2GRP
When valuing windfall augmentation benefits for the purposes of calculating loss and redress the objective is to exclude all changes arising from the windfall event. The amount of redress payable will then be equal to the amount that would have been payable if the windfall event had never occurred.3434
DISP App 1.6.9GRP
34In most cases where there is a loss, the endowment policy will be surrendered and put towards the cost of setting up a suitable repayment mortgage. Where this is the case, that part of the surrender value relating to the windfall augmentation should be paid as a cash lump sum to the investor or to the investor's order as part of the redress package. Only that part of the surrender value which does not relate to the windfall augmentation should be put towards the cost of setting
DISP App 1.6.10GRP
34There may be some circumstances in which the policy will not be surrendered (see DISP App 1.2.15 G). In these cases, there is no requirement to pay the value of the windfall augmentation as a cash lump sum since the value of the augmentation will become payable when the policy matures. However, any fund value used in the calculation of redress payable should exclude the value of the windfall augmentation.
DISP App 1.6.11GRP
34Firms are entitled to mitigate losses by making use of the Traded Endowment Policy (TEP) market (see DISP App 1.3.8 G to DISP App 1.3.10 G). This allows firms to sell policies on the TEP market to meet the costs of redress, rather than using the surrender value. Where this method is adopted, firms should pay to the investor, as part of the redress package, a cash lump sum representing that proportion of the policy realised which would have related to the windfall augmentati
DISP App 1.6.12GRP
34As this windfall amount should be excluded from the fund value used in the calculation of loss and redress it would also be appropriate for this extra payment to be ignored when assessing whether, "the net amount realised by the sale of the policy on the traded endowment market exceeds the total redress due to the complainant..." (DISP App 1.3.10 G).
DISP App 1.6.14GRP
34DISP App 1.5.10 G provides firms with the opinion of underpinning benefits. Firms should satisfy the FCA that their proposals provide complainants with a level of redress that is at least commensurate with the standard approaches and, to ensure consistency, windfall augmentations should be excluded when considering whether an underpin will apply. The FCA will take this into account when considering proposals put forward by firms.
DISP App 1.6.15GRP
34Product providers with windfall benefits in the form of policy augmentations should tell:(1) their own relevant customers (mortgage endowment complainants); and(2) 1other firms1 with such customers (and any other interested parties);that they have excluded windfall augmentation benefits from values used or to be used for loss and redress.1Firms1 should provide this information to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme when providing them with a value to be used for loss
DISP App 3.7.1ERP
Where the firm concludes in accordance with DISP App 3.6 that the complainant would still have bought the payment protection contract he bought, no redress will be due to the complainant in respect of the identified breach or failing, subject to DISP App 3.7.6 E.
DISP App 3.7.2ERP
Where the firm concludes that the complainant would not have bought the payment protection contract he bought, and the firm is not using the alternative approach to redress (set out in DISP App 3.7.7 E to 3.7.15 E) or other appropriate redress (see DISP App 3.8), the firm should, as far as practicable, put the complainant in the position he would have been if he had not bought any payment protection contract.
DISP App 3.7.5ERP
Where a claim was previously paid on the policy, the firm may deduct this from redress paid in accordance with DISP App 3.7.3 E. If the claim is higher than the amount to be paid under DISP App 3.7.3 E then the firm may also deduct the excess from the amount to be paid under DISP App 3.7.4 E.
DISP App 3.7.6ERP
Where the firm concludes that the complainant may have reasonably expected that a rejected claim would have been paid (see DISP App 3.5) then:(1) if the value of the claim exceeds the amount of the redress otherwise payable to the complainant for a breach or failing identified in accordance with this appendix, the firm should pay to the complainant only the value of the claim (and simple interest on it as appropriate); and(2) if the value of the claim is less than the amount of
DISP App 3.7.8ERP
If a firm chooses to make this presumption, then it should do so fairly and for all relevant complainants in a relevant category of sale. It should not, for example, only use the approach for those complainants it views as being a lower underwriting risk or those complainants who have cancelled their policies.
DISP App 3.7.9ERP
Where the firm presumes that the complainant would have purchased a regular premium payment protection contract, the firm should offer redress that puts the complainant in the position he would have been if he had bought an alternative regular premium payment protection contract.
DISP App 3.7.10ERP
The firm should pay to the complainant a sum equal to the amount in DISP App 3.7.3 E less the amount the complainant would have paid for the alternative regular premium payment protection contract.
DISP App 3.7.11ERP
The firm should consider whether it is appropriate to deduct the value of any paid claims from the redress.
DISP App 3.7.13ERP
The firm should, for the purposes of redressing the complaint, use the value of £9 per £100 of benefits payable as the monthly price of the alternative regular premium payment protection contract. For example, if the monthly repayment amount in relation to the loan only is to be £200, the price of the alternative regular premium payment protection contract will be £18.
DISP App 1.4.3GRP
If on enquiry it is found that no proper assessment of the complainant's post-retirement means had been undertaken at the time of sale, but if the likelihood had been that the complainant would have borrowed the same amount over a shorter term (up to retirement) using an endowment policy as a repayment vehicle, then an appropriate form of redress would be for the policy to be reconstructed with a shorter term.
DISP App 1.4.4GRP
12Redress should in most cases be provided by meeting the cost of rearranging the policy, by way of a lump sum payment into the policy in respect of the higher rate of premium due from its inception. It may be appropriate in individual cases to take account of the lower premiums that the complainant will have paid to date. The guidance in DISP App 1.2, as to the circumstances in which this will be appropriate, will be relevant here.
DISP App 1.4.9GRP
12If it is not possible for a firm to reconstruct a policy, then it should offer the investor equivalent redress, for example, by paying a cash lump sum equivalent to the amount that would have been credited to a reconstructed policy.
DISP App 1.4.10GRP
12If a loan extending into retirement was on any basis not affordable, whether or not it is reconstructed to the retirement date, firms will need to consider whether, if proper advice had been given, the loan would have been taken out at all and, if not, consider what arrangements might now need to be made in order to reduce the amount of the complainant's borrowings.
DISP App 1.4.13GRP
12The following examples illustrate the approach to redress as described in this section.
DISP App 1.4.14GRP

12Example 8

Example 8

Term extends beyond retirement age and policy reconstruction

Background

45 year old male non-smoker, having taken out a £50,000 loan in 1998 for a term of 25 years. Unsuitable sale identified on the grounds of affordability and complaint raised on 12th policy anniversary.

It has always been the intention of the complainant to retire at State retirement age 65.

Term from date of sale to retirement is 20 years and the maturity date of the mortgage is 5 years after retirement.

Established facts

Established premium paid by investor on policy of original term (25 years):

£81.20

Premium that would have been payable on policy with term from sale to retirement (20 years):

£111.20

Actual policy value at time complaint assessed:

£12,500

Value of an equivalent 20-year policy at time complaint assessed:

£21,300

Difference in policy values at time complaint assessed:

£8,800

Difference in outgoings (20 year policy - 25 year policy):

£4,320

Basis of compensation

The policy is reconstructed as if it had been set up originally on a term to mature at retirement age, in this example, a term of 20 years. The difference in the current value of the policy actually sold to the complainant and the current value of the reconstructed policy, as if the premium on the reconstructed policy had been paid from outset, is calculated. The complainant has gained from lower outgoings (lower premiums) of the actual endowment policy to date. In calculating the redress, the gain may be offset against the loss unless the complainant's particular circumstances are such that it would be unreasonable to take account of the gain.

Redress generally if it is not unreasonable to take account of the whole of the gain from lower outgoings

Loss from current value of reconstructed policy less current value of actual policy:

(£8,800)

Gain from total lower outgoings under actual policy:

£4,320

Net loss:

(£4,480)

Therefore total redress is:

£4,480

Redress if it is unreasonable to take account of gain from lower outgoings

Loss from current value of reconstructed policy less current value of actual policy:

(£8,800)

Gain from total lower outgoings under actual policy:

Ignored

Therefore total redress is:

£8,800

Additional Information

If the policy is capable of reconstruction, the complainant must now fund the higher premiums himself for the remainder of the term of the shortened policy until maturity. In this example the higher premium could be £111.20. However the firm should provide the complainant with a reprojection letter based on the reconstructed policy such that the actual monthly payment required to achieve the target sum could be even higher, say £130. The reprojection letter should set out the range of options facing the complainant to deal with the projected shortfall, if any.

DISP App 1.4.15GRP

12Example 9

Example 9

Term extends beyond retirement age: example of failure to explain investment risks

Background

45 year old male non-smoker, having taken out a £50,000 loan in 1998 for a term of 25 years. Unsuitable sale identified on the grounds of affordability and complaint raised on 12th anniversary.

It has always been the intention of the complainant to retire at state retirement age 65.

Term from date of sale to retirement is 20 years and the maturity date of the mortgage is five years after retirement.

In addition, an endowment does not meet the complainant's attitude to investment risk and a repayment mortgage would have been taken out if properly advised.

Established facts

Surrender value (on the 25 year policy) at time complaint assessed:

£12,500

Capital repaid under repayment mortgage of term to retirement date (20 years):

£21,000

Surrender value less capital repaid:

(£8.500)

Difference in outgoings (repayment - endowment):

£5,400

Cost of converting from endowment mortgage to repayment mortgage:

£200

Basis of compensation:

The surrender value of the (25 year term) endowment policy is compared to the capital that would have been repaid to date under a repayment mortgage arranged to repay the loan at retirement age, in this example, a repayment mortgage for a term of 20 years. The complainant has gained from lower outgoings of the endowment mortgage to date. In calculating the redress, the gain may be offset against the loss unless the complainant's particular circumstances are such that it would be unreasonable to take account of the gain. The conversion costs are also taken into account in calculating the redress.

Redress generally

Loss from surrender value less capital repaid:

(£8,500)

Gain from total lower outgoings under endowment mortgage:

£5,400

Cost of converting to a repayment mortgage:

(£200)

Net loss:

(£3,300)

Therefore total redress is:

£3,300

Redress if it is unreasonable to take account of gain from lower outgoings

Loss from surrender value less capital repaid:

(£8,500)

Gain from total lower outgoings under endowment mortgage:

Ignored

Cost of converting to a repayment mortgage:

(£8,700)

Therefore total redress is:

£8,700
DISP App 3.8.1ERP
The remedies in DISP App 3.7 are not exhaustive.
DISP App 3.8.2ERP
When applying a remedy other than those set out in DISP App 3.7, the firm should satisfy itself that the remedy is appropriate to the matter complained of and is appropriate and fair in the individual circumstances.
DISP App 3.8.3ERP
1The remedies in DISP App 3.7A are not exhaustive.
DISP App 3.9.1GRP
Where the complainant's loan or credit card is in arrears the firm may, if it has the contractual right to do so, make a payment to reduce the associated loan or credit card balance, if the complainant accepts the firm's offer of redress. The firm should act fairly and reasonably in deciding whether to make such a payment.
DISP App 3.9.2GRP
In assessing redress, the firm should consider whether there are any other further losses that flow from its breach or failing or from its failure to disclose commission (as applicable), 1 that were reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the firm's breach or failing or of its failure to disclose commission,1 for example, where the payment protection contract's cost or rejected claims contributed to affordability issues for the associated loan or credit which led to arrears
DISP App 3.9.3GRP
Where, for single premium policies, there were previous breaches or failings or previous failures to disclose commission1 (see DISP App 3.2.7 G) the redress to the complainant should address the cumulative financial impact.
DISP App 3.9.4GRP
The firm should make any offer of redress to the complainant in a fair and balanced way. In particular, the firm should explain clearly to the complainant the basis for the redress offered including how any compensation is calculated and, where relevant, the rescheduling of the loan, and the consequences of accepting the offer of redress.
DISP App 1.3.1GRP
As already noted, the basic objective of redress is to put the complainant, so far as is possible, in the position he would have been in if the inappropriate advice or other breach had not occurred: for their part, the complainants should take such reasonable steps as they can to limit loss once they are informed of the position they are in because of the failure of advice at the time of sale.1212
DISP App 1.3.8GRP
12As stated, one aspect of the conversion process is the disposal of the endowment policy. The standard approach to assessing loss requires firms to calculate loss using the surrender value. However, once loss is established on this basis and firms move to deal with redress, they may wish to consider whether there is a role for the policy's 'market value' within the traded endowment policy (TEP) market.
DISP App 1.3.9GRP
12A firm may arrange the sale of the endowment policy on the traded endowment market, provided the full implications of such a course of action are explained to the complainant and his express consent is obtained for the firm to arrange the sale. This includes informing the investor that he will continue to be the life assured under the policy. The complainant should be informed that such an arrangement may reduce or eliminate the amount of redress actually borne by the firm,
DISP App 1.3.10GRP
12In the event that a complainant is willing to pursue this option, a firm should first have assessed the complainant's loss using the approach set out in this appendix, and the minimum amount the complainant should receive under such a sale arrangement is the sum representing the position the complainant should have been in under this appendix together with the reimbursement of remortgaging costs. In order to ensure the process does not delay the provision of redress, the firm
DISP App 1.3.11GRP

12Example of assessment set out at 1.3.10

The following example illustrates the position:

Surrender value

£10,000

TEP value

£16,000

Loss calculated by standard approach

£5,000

Remortgaging costs

£300

Total

£15,300

Complainant receives £16,000 all ultimately funded from the TEP sale.

Surrender value

£10,000

TEP value

£13,000

Redress calculated by standard approach

£5,000

Remortgaging costs

£300

Total

£15,300

Complainant receives £15,300, £13,000 ultimately funded from the TEP sale and £2,300 ultimately funded from the firm.

DISP App 1.5.1GRP
This section addresses issues which may be relevant to the standard redress for unsuitability cases, as well as some post-retirement cases upheld on the grounds of affordability.2323
DISP App 1.5.4GRP
If a need for life assurance at inception has been established so that a deduction representing its cost has been made from the redress payable under DISP App 1.2.4 G, the firm should advise the complainant that the firm would be responsible for paying any premium for an appropriate replacement policy which exceeds that used for calculating the deduction or alternatively will, where possible, provide the cover itself at that cost. If it is not possible for the firm to provide
DISP App 1.5.10GRP
23Firms proposing to offer arrangements involving some form of minimum underpinning or 'guarantee' should discuss their proposals with the FCA and1 HM Revenue and Customs1 at the earliest possible opportunity (see DISP App 1.5.8 G). The FCA will need to be satisfied that these proposals provide complainants with redress which is at least commensurate with the standard approaches contained in this appendix.
DISP App 1.5.11GRP
23One of the reasons for introducing the guidance in this appendix is to seek a reduction in the number of complaints which are referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service. If a firm writes to the complainant proposing terms for settlement which are in accordance with this appendix, the letter may include a statement that the calculation of loss and redress accords with the FCAguidance, but should not imply that this extends to the assessment of whether or not the complaint should
DISP App 1.5.13GRP
23Windfall benefits should be determined in accordance with the principle in Needler Financial Services and Taber ('Needler'). The basic legal principle in Needler is that a windfall benefit is not to be taken into account in determining the amount of an investor's recoverable loss. The following paragraphs explain our views as to how firms may act in accordance with that principle.
DISP App 1.5.18GRP
23Firms should not normally bring windfall benefits which are relevant benefits (as defined in DISP App 1.5.14 G) to account when assessing financial loss and redress. Where a windfall benefit is in the form of a policy augmentation the benefit should be deducted from the overall value of the policy when making this assessment.
DISP App 3.1.1GRP
(1) 1This appendix sets out how:3(a) 3a firm should handle complaints relating to the sale of a payment protection contract by the firm which express dissatisfaction about the sale, or matters related to the sale, including where there is a rejection of claims on the grounds of ineligibility or exclusion (but not matters unrelated to the sale, such as delays in claims handling); and3(b) 3a firm that is a CCA lender and which has received such a complaint should consider whether
DISP App 3.1.2GRP
At step 1, the3 aspects of complaint handling dealt with in this appendix are how the firm should:(1) assess a complaint in order to establish whether the firm's conduct of the sale failed to comply with the rules, or was otherwise in breach of the duty of care or any other requirement of the general law (taking into account relevant materials published by the FCA, other relevant regulators, the Financial Ombudsman Service and former schemes). In this appendix this is referred
DISP App 3.1.4AGRP
3At step 2, the aspects of complaint handling dealt with in this appendix are how a CCA lender should:(1) assess a complaint to establish whether failure to disclose commission gave rise to an unfair relationship under section 140A of the CCA; and(2) determine the appropriate redress (if any) to offer to a complainant.
DISP App 3.1.5GRP
In this appendix:(1) (a) at step 1,3 “historic interest” means the interest the complainant paid to the firm because a payment protection contract was added to a loan or credit product;3(b) at step 2, “historic interest” means in relation to any sum, the interest the complainant paid as a result of that sum being included in the loan or credit product;32(2) "simple interest" means a non-compound rate of 8% per annum;3(3) "claim" means a claim by a complainant seeking to rely upon
DISP App 3.7A.2ERP
Where the firm concludes in accordance with DISP App 3.3A that the non-disclosure has given rise to an unfair relationship under section 140A of the CCA, the firm should remedy the unfairness.
DISP App 3.7A.3AERP
In relation to a regular premium payment protection contract, the firm should pay to the complainant in respect of each redress period a sum equal to:(1) an amount appropriately representing the commission paid in respect of that period; plus (2) an amount appropriately representing profit share in respect of that period; minus (3) 50% of the amount appropriately representing the total amount paid in respect of that period2 (or other percentage as in DISP App 3.7A.4E). A firm
DISP App 3.7A.5ERP
If the complainant has received any rebate, the firm may calculate the amount of the rebate that represents commission and actual profit share sums paid up to the point of the rebate that were more than 50% (or such other percentage determined under DISP App 3.7A.4E) of the total amount paid in relation to the payment protection contract and deduct this from the amount of redress otherwise payable to the complainant.
DISP App 3.7A.10ERP
Where a claim was previously paid on the policy, the firm should not deduct this from the redress paid.
DISP 1.10B.7DRP
DISP 1 Annex 1AD requires, for the relevant reporting period and in respect of particular categories of products:(1) in Table 1, information about the total number of complaints received by the respondent and the cause of the complaint;(2) in Table 2, information about the number of complaints that were:(a) closed or upheld within different periods of time; and(b) the total amount of redress paid by the respondent in relation to complaints upheld and not upheld in the relevant
DISP 1.10B.8GRP
When completing the return, the respondent should take into account the following matters.(1) If a complaint could fall into more than one category, the complaint should be recorded in the category which the respondent considers to form the main part of the complaint.(2) Under DISP 1.10B.7D(2)(a), a respondent should report information relating to all complaints which are closed and upheld within the relevant reporting period, including those resolved under DISP 1.5 (Complaints
DISP App 3.4.1GRP
DISP 1.3.3 R requires the firm to put in place appropriate management controls and take reasonable steps to ensure that in handling complaints it identifies and remedies any recurring or systemic problems. If a firm receives complaints about its sales of payment protection contracts it should analyse the root causes of those complaints including, but not limited to, the consideration of:(1) the concerns raised by complainants (both at the time of the sale and subsequently);(2)
DISP App 3.4.3GRP
Where a firm identifies (from its complaints or otherwise) recurring or systemic problems in its sales practices for a particular type of payment protection contract, either for its sales in general or for those from a particular location or sales channel, it should (in accordance with Principle 6 (Customers' interests) and to the extent that it applies), consider whether it ought to act with regard to the position of customers who may have suffered detriment from, or been potentially
ICOBS 4.1.2RRP
Prior to the conclusion of an initial contract of insurance and, if necessary, on its amendment or renewal, a firm must provide the customer with at least:(1) its name and address;(2) the fact that it is included in the Financial Services Register and the means for verifying this;(3) whether it has a direct or indirect holding representing more than 10% of the voting rights or capital in a given insurance undertaking (that is not a pure reinsurer);(4) whether a given insurance
ICOBS 4.1.5RRP
In relation to a connected travel insurance contract, a firm need only provide the procedures allowing customers and other interested parties to register complaints about the firm with the firm and the Financial Ombudsman Service or, if the Financial Ombudsman Service does not apply, information about the out-of-court complaint and redress procedures available for the settlement of disputes between the firm and its customers.22
DISP App 3.2.4GRP
Where a complaint raises (expressly or otherwise) issues that may relate to the original sale or a subsequently rejected claim then, irrespective of the main focus of the complaint, the firm should pro-actively consider whether the issues relate to both the sale and the claim, and assess the complaint and determine redress accordingly.
COBS 20.2.24RRP
Subject to COBS 20.2.25 R, COBS 20.2.25A R and COBS 20.2.25B R, a1firm must not pay compensation or redress from a with-profits fund.11
COBS 20.2.25RRP
A proprietary1firm may pay compensation or redress due to a policyholder, or former policyholder, from assets attributable to shareholders, whether or not they are held within a long-term insurance fund or with-profits fund, as relevant.511
CONC 4.4.2RRP
(1) A firm must disclose to the customer the fee, if any, payable by a customer to the firm for its services. [Note: section 160A(4) of CCA] (2) Any fee to be paid by the customer to the firm must be agreed between the customer and the firm, and that agreement must be recorded in writing or other durable medium before a regulated credit agreement is entered into.[Note: section 160A(4) of CCA] (3) A firm must disclose to the lender the fee, if any, for its activity payable by the
EG 5.1.3RP
1Settlements in the FCA context are not the same as ‘out of court’ settlements in the commercial context. An FCA settlement is a regulatory decision, taken by the FCA, the terms of which are accepted by the firm or individual concerned. So, when agreeing the terms of a settlement, the FCA will carefully consider its statutory objectives and other relevant matters such as the importance of sending clear, consistent messages through enforcement action, and will only settle in appropriate
EG 11.2.1RP
2In deciding whether to exercise its powers to seek or require restitution under sections 382, 383 or 384 of the Act, the FCA will consider all the circumstances of the case. The factors which the FCA will consider may include, but are not limited to, those set out below. (1) Are the profits quantifiable? The FCA will consider whether quantifiable profits have been made which are owed to identifiable persons. In certain circumstances it may be difficult to prove that the conduct
ICOBS 3.2.8RRP
The requirements relating to the placing and receipt of orders do not apply to contracts concluded exclusively by exchange of e-mail or by equivalent individual communications.[Note: article 10(4) and 11(3) of the E-Commerce Directive]
DISP App 3.11.1RRP
1This section applies where:(1) a complainant has made a complaint to a firm in relation to its sale of a payment protection contract which covered or purported to cover a credit agreement (this includes partial coverage); (2) the complaint was rejected by the firm before 29 August 2017 in that the firm did not offer the complainant the redress they would have been offered had the firm concluded that the complainant would not have bought the payment protection contract they bought;