| Am I qualified? |
We established a two
stage process so that WPAs could fill in the forms, copy their documents
and get professional advice and all for a modest £100, of which £20
comes to ELTA to help fund our activities. The only people who can
advise WPAs if they are qualified are the lawyers at Clarke Willmott. |
| Will Clarke Willmott
refund the £100 if I do not qualify? |
No, the £100 is not
refundable. You will ONLY be asked for the £900 is in the opinion of CW
you do qualify to participate in the group action.
|
| Can Widows join in the
litigation? |
If the Widow or Widower
is disadvantaged by the reductions passed through by the Society, then
the Widow is entitled to make a claim for compensation against the
Society. However, as above, the individual must complete all the forms,
send them plus £100 to Clarke Willmott who can make the
assessment. |
| What
happens if I die during the litigation? |
The executors of
your estate can continue to litigate on your behalf and any compensation
awarded will be distributed according to the Instructions in Your Will. |
|
What happens if I was
advised by an IFA?
|
It depends on the
circumstances which can only be assessed by Clarke Willmott once they
have seen the WPAs papers. So the WPA must complete all the forms, send
then plus £100 to Clarke Willmott who can make the assessment. |
|
What do we pay if we
both have annuities with the Society?
|
The rule is as follows:
-
Couples who are cohabiting at the
same address count as one. Thus the fee is £100 upfront and £900
if accepted.
-
Divorced couples that no longer live
together and that have a joint annuity count as one. Thus the fee is
£100 upfront and £900 if accepted.
|
| Can I claim Legal Aid
and still join the litigation? |
If you qualify for
Legal Aid and that is NOT easy, then subject to the usual caveats above,
yes you can. But you will have to go and see Clarke Willmott to complete
all the forms. |
| Why can't we transfer
our annuities to another provider? |
There is no reason why
this cannot be done provided you can find someone willing to take you on
and the Society gives it's consent. It is not for me to pre-judge the
response of the Society but historically the Society says it cannot do
this!
Also bear in mind, that
the annuity you would get from another supplier, (once the Society had
computed how much of your original consideration money was left, less
any transfer costs, less any MVA that the Society might make, and the
large reduction in Annuity Rates over the last few years), might be only
be a small fraction of even the reduced annuity you are getting from the
Society. Apart from security of supply, you might decide NOT to transfer
out. |
| We signed the
Compromise Deal, so aren't we prevented from suing the Society? |
You only signed away
your right to sue the Society over the GAR issue. In fact this right was
taken away from you by the majority vote even if you didn't sign the
Compromise Deal!
You are not prevented
from suing the Society if the product you purchased does not meet your
reasonable expectations. In other words it was mis-sold. In the case of
the WPAs, if you did not realise that as much as 50% of your annuity
could be removed and used by the Society for other purposes for example,
then you were mis-sold! Or if the representative failed to mention that
the Society kept no reserves to protect the WPAs from a downturn in the
stock market then you were misinformed and thus mis-sold.
|
| Aren't we suing
ourselves? |
No, you are suing the
Society. This is the most frequently asked question and is best answered
by a number of examples:
1)
If you had an accident, went into hospital and the surgeon just got it
wrong and you came out severely impaired as a result of the hospital's
or its staff's negligence or incompetence, would you say I won't sue the
hospital because it is funded by taxes and as we are all taxpayers I am
only suing myself? No, I guess not!
2)
If your PC blows up in your face as you are reading this text and you
are injured and it transpires that the PC is not fit for purpose, would
you not sue the company because you also happened to be a shareholder?
No, I guess not!
It is the
responsibility of the Society to manage its affairs prudently with
regard to the nature of its business and its clients. Lord Penrose
appears to show that this was not the case. What are we supposed to do?
Say, “Well that’s OK then, just so long as I know why I am poor I
can rest easy in my bed?” |
| Aren't we taking money
from other members? |
If it was your
expectation that your lifetime's savings for your peaceful retirement
were to be used by the Society to give to other members, then of course
you have no complaints. But if someone used your credit card to take
your money for their purposes and you sued to get your money back, of
course the family of the person who had taken your money would be worse
off, but would you say that's OK then, as long as they are better off I
do not mind being worse off?! I think not possibly!
Had you been a Mirror
employee, and you discovered that Robert Maxwell had used the company
pension fund for improper purposes, would you say I will not sue the
Mirror because the other workers will be dis-advantaged? No, I guess
not!
As
I have said before, I am perfectly happy for others to reap the rewards
of their investments with the Society but I can see no moral logic which
says it is OK for me to become poorer whilst others get richer at my
expense!
|
| I
think that my situation is not typical of other WPAs. How can I get
advice? |
What is proposed is a
group claim. This has limitations upon the manner in which a claim is
dealt with and I refer you to Clarke Willmott’s proposal dated 1 April
2004 and particularly, the comments under “Individual circumstances”
and “What size fits all?
Clarke Willmott cannot
and will not be providing a personalised service to members of the
group.
If you require an
individual consideration of your circumstances, you should obtain
personal legal advice. Clarke Willmott will be happy to provide you with
details of their service but obviously, there are many firms of
solicitors who would be happy to do so.
|
| Aren't we just making
the lawyers richer? |
Yes, we are. But why
should they work for free? The question to be asked is not if the
lawyers will be richer but will you get the compensation that you feel
is right for you in your circumstances. If you think you are entitled to
£20,000 and get £20,000 but the lawyer makes £30,000 in the process
but which does not come out of your pocket, why are you complaining. You
pay other suppliers, why not lawyers? |
