Home owner sent from pillar to post

When David Evans, a police officer, bought his Gloucester house in 1983, he opted for a straight repayment mortgage for his £22,150 loan. Four years later, an Allied Dunbar (now Zurich) agent arrived at his door.

"I didn't really want this but a fellow officer was raising money for charity with a sponsored walk in Australia. Allied Dunbar offered him a big sum provided he handed over details of his colleagues. So, I saw the Dunbar agent," says Evans.

He was persuaded to take out an endowment policy. But when Mr Evans wanted to complain about mis-selling earlier this year - he had not been told about the investment risk in endowments - he was sent from pillar to post. Allied Dunbar, which sold the policy, Standard Life, which provided the policy, and Halifax, which lent him the money, all denied responsibility.

He says: "I know I bought from the Dunbar agent, I still have all the paperwork and it very clearly comes from an Allied Dunbar branch in Salisbury. But according to Standard Life, I bought it from a Halifax branch in Gloucester after receiving financial advice. Halifax contradicts this - it says I bought as a result of a direct mailing and did not receive advice. This is nonsense."

To make matters worse, Zurich brushed aside the Dunbar headed notepaper which promised the endowment policy "actually will guarantee your mortgage is paid off in line with your retiring from the police force."

Zurich said: "The agent is no longer connected to Zurich so we are unable to ask him why he provided you details of a Standard Life plan on Allied Dunbar headed paper. We can only assume this was a mistake on his part and this is something you will need to take up with him."

Eventually, Mr Evans came to Jobs & Money and we pointed out to Zurich that he had every right to rely on the Allied Dunbar headed paper, and that it could not run away from its responsibilities under a legal doctrine known as "vicarious liability" - under which an employer is liable for negligent acts or omissions by an employee in the course of employment whether or not the employer authorised it.

We also argued that Zurich could not ignore the guarantee - an important part of the sales persuasion process. As a result, Zurich has now agreed to calculate a compensation package based on the guarantee.