<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Norwich Union reattribution cut</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sellendowments.com/news/investment/norwich-union-reattribution-cut/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sellendowments.com/news/investment/norwich-union-reattribution-cut/</link>
	<description>Endowment selling news and information.Latest on TEP market,mortgage endowment misselling and maturity shortfalls</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2011 07:05:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: W Robbins</title>
		<link>http://www.sellendowments.com/news/investment/norwich-union-reattribution-cut/comment-page-1/#comment-146</link>
		<dc:creator>W Robbins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:06:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sellendowments.com/news/?p=347#comment-146</guid>
		<description>I quite agree with R Lovatt, this is surely business mal practice on an enormous scale. We were advised by a NU salesman not to cash in our endowment policy back in 2007 because our policy entitled us to a £1000 bonus from the inherited estate. So we waited. Since that time NU brought in MVR penalties whist renaging on the inherited estate bonus meaning that over the past 18 months we have lost a further £2500 on this policy. We are now making an official complaint to NU over this situation but I am surprised not to find more about this on web blogs and finance sites from other unhappy policy holders who must have also been similarly misguided by NU staff when they tried to cash in poorly perfoming policies back in 2007/8.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I quite agree with R Lovatt, this is surely business mal practice on an enormous scale. We were advised by a NU salesman not to cash in our endowment policy back in 2007 because our policy entitled us to a £1000 bonus from the inherited estate. So we waited. Since that time NU brought in MVR penalties whist renaging on the inherited estate bonus meaning that over the past 18 months we have lost a further £2500 on this policy. We are now making an official complaint to NU over this situation but I am surprised not to find more about this on web blogs and finance sites from other unhappy policy holders who must have also been similarly misguided by NU staff when they tried to cash in poorly perfoming policies back in 2007/8.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: R Lovatt</title>
		<link>http://www.sellendowments.com/news/investment/norwich-union-reattribution-cut/comment-page-1/#comment-128</link>
		<dc:creator>R Lovatt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:02:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sellendowments.com/news/?p=347#comment-128</guid>
		<description>Surely Aviva must be breaking the law by removing money from the reattribution fund which belongs to policy holders and not the company.
The second point is that they are claiming that the fund has reduced considerably, now from a laymans point of view, if the money had been ringfenced then the fund should have remained the same notwithstanding stockmarket flutuations. IE if I had a hundred pounds in my wallet yesterday and I didn&#039;t spend any of it then I still have a hundred pounds.

There appears to be skulldugery afoot, someone surely has to take High Court action, the sooner the better.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surely Aviva must be breaking the law by removing money from the reattribution fund which belongs to policy holders and not the company.<br />
The second point is that they are claiming that the fund has reduced considerably, now from a laymans point of view, if the money had been ringfenced then the fund should have remained the same notwithstanding stockmarket flutuations. IE if I had a hundred pounds in my wallet yesterday and I didn&#8217;t spend any of it then I still have a hundred pounds.</p>
<p>There appears to be skulldugery afoot, someone surely has to take High Court action, the sooner the better.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

