Who will trust Lifetime again?

How NU could even have ever contemplated this is beyond me. A wrap pre supposes that you have a first class web and IT systems. So NU falls at the first fence. You can't even value their own policies and investments on the web.

Where do these people have their heads (if it is not up their backsides?)

We just tried to change the agency of a new clients plan to ourselves with the clients signature on the relevant form and copy passports certified by me as ID which I took when I visited them at home.

NU then reply saying they will not transfer the agency as the clients signature differs (I susepct they don't even have a copy of her signature) and they will not accept my signed certified copy, the client has to sign a form they have sent her and have it signed, witnessed and stamped by an official from a bank, building society, post office or by a solicitor.

Now as an IFA, I have to be individually registered on the FSA register as does my firm. To have an agency with NU, I have to have signed their agency terms. None of the people NU say they will accept have to be registered and NU will have no way of knowing whetehr they exist or not!

This is when the data protection act and jobsworths are totally incapable of a bit of common sense!

The ironic thing is if my client wanted to invest 2million of laundered monies, NU would quite happily take my word for it!

12 months with Amex. A miserable 18 months of having clients on Lifetime. If Transact goes belly up I am moving to the US to become a sub-prime broker!!

I visited Lifetimes offices in Cambridge as they were launching. It was abundalntly clear that it was only partially functioning, it had poor income taking facilities and even the most obvious requests for a facility were met with a "oh, would that be useful then?"

I fail to see how any IFA placed business with them when it wasn't finished or functional. A bit like buying a car with no seats or wheels. I knew of a couple locally who did use them, but they hadn't a clue about WRAPS anyway.

As for Norwich Union in general - have never used them and never will. Having said that I'm just processing an annuity application with them, so fingers crossed.

STOP PRESS:

NU to rebrand Lifetime as Betamax.

A spokesman said "Betamax promised everything but was a pile of steaming crap, so we thought it summed up our intention to be a leading player in the steaming pile of crap market"

STOP PRESS 2:

NU appoints the Child Catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang as head of new business.

A spokesman said "We all know that everyone trusts him. We are planning to relaunch our crapform in the New Year and will be offering IFAs lots of lovely ice cream...

....ice cream, lovely ice crem....

come here IFAs...."

The problem with our industry is that it is rare that the manufacturers of products ever really face the music. Be it an investment that goes wrong, a policy that fails to deliver or in this case a service proposition.

However, the advisor does face the music consistently and quite frankly I would think that many are sick of taking the stick for companies that fail to deliver on service.

They wonder why they are used less and less.

Finally, with all the rantings and ravings regarding charges and particularly in respect of Transact, at least they deliver what they say on the tin.

Roll on retirement!!!!

The bitterness of poor service remains long after the sweetness of low price has been forgotten.

The bottom line is there isnt one!!!

This industry is running on low margins and Lifetime is a good example of the end result.

Transact makes no fortune and cannot be held up as the profitable business model for the industry, even though I like the company.

Problems such as Lifetime will continue while an industry tries to operate on secondary, servicing type margins.

Take the phone industry for example, the margins were huge when trying to create a market and only when swamped and everyone knew the product did it turn to secondary lower servicing margins, that is a normal business cycle.

We were growing in the 80s but have been cut down by a poor regulatory decision, we will see more of this type of problem when companies cannot afford the correct budget for new product launches.

Before we went FSA direct we were part of Millfield.

Millfield were involved in the original set up of Lifetime with NU and we were "forced" to attend a presentation of this brand new platform.

The number of basic things we were told it could not do lead us to conclude it was not for us and so we did not sue it.

It is clear from the long standing blogs / press articles / letters that life Time never really got into a position of beign truly capable of doing what it said it could do.

Easy to comment with hindsight I know, but ti does give a stark warning to advisers utilsiing one platform for their entire business strategy - you are at the platofrm's behest, which I would suggest is a dangerous place to be.

We do use Transact for some of our business - how would we react if the shareholders did decide to sell to Axa say?

Now there's a worrying thought!

That is why I would like to see these products making small fortunes and the founders therefore not wanting to let them go, then everyone feels more secure, the owners, us, the clients and we know they can afford to fund development.

Lifetime was probably an unfortunate name as it has a hint of mortality and not eternity about it, tortoise or fruitfly?

Why does it appear these days that Insurance companies, banks and the FSA get their marketing staff from Billy Smarts Circus?

No doubt some clown will have been paid £100k plus for coming up with this idea.

Surely it's about time the FSA looked at these companies and gets them to 'bench test' their systems before dumping them on the general public and IFA sector.

By doing so it may help get rid of the regulation by 20/20 hindsight.

Oh dear - I've just woken up!

I used to work for lifetime both in Cambridge and York. To be honest the idea of the wrap platform was a good basis, but in practise, no matter how much money was thrown at the problems, NU could not get it right.

I would just like to say that while the people at the top were busy thinking of new ways to get your money, the people who actually did the work at the bottom worked really hard to solve issues and actually help the customer.

Im sorry that it had to end in such a mess, but the sad reality is that this project failed due to lack of knowledge and bad management.

I hope with the new IT management and the change in location will see these constant problems resolved.