In a nutshell we were sold an endowment linked mortgage in1988. We asked for a short term repayment mortgage due to the fact that i hadbeen diagnosed with a chronic illness. The leeds building society unbeknown tous passed our application on to a bogus unauthorised financial advisor who wasmaking commission on policies sold. Now all the parties involved with thisdeception are claiming no accountability. The FOS v assumed it to be an endowment shortfallbut my complaint was about the underhand practices of the corrupt individuals we were dealing with it was easy to downgrade it to a pitifulshort fall of 1600£ . now we are in a real dilemma due to the collusion of allthe parties in the banking establishment. The FOS the worse culprits , they have passedregulations to, pander to the banks

In 1988 I was unfortunately diagnosed with a chronic illnessprimary progressive multiple sclerosis. This meant me and my wife having to re-evaluate oursituation. The priority was the mortgage. To make sure the mortgage would bepaid off when e both retired the obvious was a repayment mortgage to pay off asmuch as possible in the early stages while I was capable of contributing as itwould be a joint application. We approached the local branch of the leedspermanent building society and applied. Unbeknown to us our application waspassed on to an independent financial advisor martin taylor mortgage and financialservices by individuals in theemployment of the (lpbs). Our grievance is that firstly we were given an endowmentlinked mortgage that relied on long term investment to accrue funds to pay offthe mortgage Which is an option we definitely did not ask for or want.We were advised by a friend of ours to contactthe assurance company and enquire about waiver of premium as these policiesgenerally have a chronic illness cover for waver of premium it was then wediscovered we had been mislead by the (lpbs)and(mtmfs). As they were aware of mychronic illness. Given the predicamentThe logical and only option was a repayment mortgage with a standard life insurance policy foreach of us were the reservations we had regarding my earning potential prospects did not appearpromising. Our needs were completely disregarded by the (lpbs) and(mtmfs). infavour of commission and Following further investigation into this deception we havediscovered that the (lpbs) hadceased selling endowments in march 1988 It is obvious that an employeeor employees passed on our application to (mtmfs)in breach of their company policy. Thepolicy providers provident life assurance company paid the commission to (mtmfs) and only issue policies uponrequest the only possible way for (mtmfs)got our details was from the (lpbs). The halfax building society previously (lpbs). Are stating that as it was nota member of their staff who sold this it is not their problem. When eventually aresponse is received they hold fast tothe company guidelines to back each other. The (fsa) are no different and staffed by ex employees of banks workingfor a gilt edged pension. All the (fsa) has achieved as aregulatory body is pander to the banking institutes and established regulations to favour the bankingestablishment The (lpbs) used theservices of (mtmfs) a non regulatedbogus company to contravene their own company policy. for example when we initially protested the (fsa) upheld our complaint but reduced it to a shortfall and theywere more than happy to accept this as it meant paying an insignificant shortfall compensation even though we were not satisfied with thisdecision. As the initial complaint was deception between the (lpbs) and (mtmfs).Whobetween them deceived us into believing we were getting the service that was presentedat that time by the (lpbs). Allappeared to be above board with a notice of assignment drawn up by thesolicitors for the (lpbs) and theprovident life association and policy documents showing a minimum payout of32000£. ( mtmfs) stated it would exceed this amount and would leave us with extra funds touse how we wanted. Why would we suspectdeception was being carried out and we were the unfortunate victims It is automatically assumed that when financial deceptionis committed it is the applicants who are the architects . When in oursituation it is the establishment who are the perpetrators. And i do not believefor one moment that we are the only victims. There was a hue and cry about miss sold PPi fiasco. This debacle has more serious consequences reflecting onindividuals homes and ivelyhoods

has any body hasd or know of individualswho have had an endowment mortgage with the ledds perrmanent buildung society now the halifax