I would like to respond to the article by Andrew Verity in Money Marketing's December 11, 2003 issue.
I understand, agree and sympathise with the significant number of consumers who have been missold endowment plans in support of their mortgages but I am appalled at the standard of journalism being used in this matter.
My understanding is that the average mortgage duration is something in the order of six years, having spoken to a number of mainstream lenders.
This means that the vast majority of consumers with endowment plans will or should have reviewed their endowment plans already in conjunction with a normal house move. They will have no excuse if they have not reviewed their plans as there has been overwhelming media commentary on this matter.
Andrew, in his endeavour to make a more interesting story, has referred to a “hard-up lender” which might not extend the mortgage term and consequently repossess the unfortunate client. What claptrap.
I have spent over 25 years in this industry and I have never heard of either a hard-up lender or a lender not being prepared to extend a mortgage term and I have no direct experience of a lender repossessing a property for any reason other than non-payment of mortgage instalments.
This is one more example of a journalist endeavouring to make a story rather than reporting on it.
Please can you write about this in a more balanced way? It will help to ensure those people most seriously affected are redressed properly and the rest of the policyholders are not adversely affected because their insurance companies are damaged by spurious claims.