Claim met Vermogen !
PrivatePensionPlan, BonusPlan, TaxFriendlyPlan, WarrantyPlusPlan, CapitalPlan, SharePlan, PurchasePlan, MixPlan, PremiumSavingsPlan, EfficiencyPlan, SprintPlan, FuturePlan, PowerPlan, FlywheelPlan: plans, plans and more plans...
(Before reading further, a small recommendation to first read the text completely and than open the links at 2nd reading. Warning: all the evidence is written in Dutch)
Plans, who does not have them? Plans in the meaning of goals: study, home, remodeling, retiring. Goals that you might not even thought about. Until that consultant comes along awakening your hidden desire to work towards a goal. Let just say that consultant, within a shipload of (tax) rules, also have a great solution to achieve that goal! Your whether or not latent needs converted into a plan.
Plans with mostly a government-imposed minimum term of 15 years for a taxfree piggy bank. But then there is this phonecall from the intermediary at Spaarbeleg - 100% subsidiary of AEGON - the unique SprintPlan:
Save the best with Spaarbeleg!
The facts about Spaarbeleg, savings specialist. The advantages:
- 5-year high efficiency
- You benefit from a tax-free allowance
- Built-in security
- The investment experts AEGON manage Spaarbeleg GuaranteeFund
(...) You can also contact one of the many consultants that Spaarbeleg cooperates with. They give you a free and expert advice.
Call (030) 60 25 200
And yes, after 5 years ... nada, niente, nothing. No high efficiency, no (taxfree) benefit, no capital accumulation, no savings, inlay away, your monthly premiums guaranteed no further than your doorstep, the investment experts from but especially for AEGON. Rien ne va plus, your money stays forever with us.
Shared sorrow is half sorrow, so you join fellow victims. Especially with GESP Foundation and the Dutch Association Consumers & Finance, which now operates for ten years in class-actions. False hope, which eventually turnes out into a complete faillure, a mission imposible.
De class-action obviously takes far too long, an individual will therefore also contact the company for an individual compensation similar to what others claim on the internetforum of (AVROTROS)-RADAR. The greater the disappointment when one (obviously) does not qualify for leniency, to this day, some participants suspected in reality to fake messages on the Internet serving AEGON (False or true, Sprintlost aka Mario Kieft, lawyer at AEGON?)
The lonely warrior with guts - but without any legal knowledge - eventually reaches selfmade expert ClaimConcept, who has totally different tactics. No class-action with the aim of equal treatment, but the aim to get individual payment similar to previous individual success. No mere pretext, but justice for your personal course.
Since 2012 ClaimConcept presents itself emphatically on this forum of RADAR, also with individual lawsuits for members of the GESP Foundation or the Association Consumer & Finance. After a try-out at the end of 2011, complaints were referred to the Ombudsman of the Dutch Financial Services Consumer Complaints Institute Kifid, late 2013 resulting in this favorable Verdict GC 2013-332 November 15, 2013:
4.1.4 Regarding the Sprintplan, AEGON stated that the Committee can not take the complaint into consideration because of article 14, paragraph 1 b of the Regulation. Given the fact that consumer in 2005 affilated with the Association Consumer & Finance, and this association has pending legal proceedins against AEGON, which has not been completed yet, the complaint should be dismissed as inadmissible, AEGON says.
4.1.5 The Committee rejects this statement of her Member. AEGON has endorsed the hearing request, that there is a so-called 3: 305 DCC proceeding and Consumer himself in that proceeding is not acting as a party. Moreover, it is the characteristic of such procedures that there can not be expressed an individual claim for personal compensation, adjusted and / or assigned.
It opens the gate to new success, especially with the Supreme Court on March 28, 2014 ruling favorably on individual limitation in class-actions grounded in Article 3:305a DCC. Pleasant extra: Attorney General A. Hammerstein is also Chairman of the Board at Kifid and ranks as the State Council at the Council of State to the highest courts of our country!
But where there's no will, there's no way. Thus, the vice-president of the Disputes Committee - a lancing judge of the Supreme Court - yet devised a ruse to reject complaints about Sprintplan, with Verdict GC 2014-347 September 25, 2014 completely contrary to the line of the Supreme Court on individual prescription at 3: 305 DCC class-actions. This while Kifid even has a real Declaration Art. 14.1 sub C! Did Kifid show this to the complainant who has no legal knowledge at all? Probably not by Committeeer mr. Jules Wortel, who ever even tried to reject my request on his own disapprobation. Who probably also won't tell where the receipt is of the deal that his successor Fred Teeven had to make after a failed prosecution in Amsterdam late Nineties, but that's a whole different story.
Where there's no will, you go fast downhill. To illustrate, a number of procedures at Kifid in a row, three complaints X, Y, Z:
"I note that the previous lawyer submitted a complaint (to Aegon) on behalf of Mr X no earlier than March 2009. Given the fact that Mr. X had already been informed in February 2005 and could have been familiar with the result of the Sprintplan agreement, as AEGON rightly states, I think the period of inactivity of more than four years, amply too long to speak of the submission of the complaint within the established deadline. In 2005 namely, Mr. X or his advocate could submit his complaint to one of the predecessors of Kifid, the Disputecommittee DSI. "
Not so nice, complaining long overdue. But did AEGON tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? And what about the adversarial principle? To get an answer, we first need complaint Y, where earlier Kifid referred back to the blue mafia, but at second attempt we were able to force the opportunity to expose the lies of AEGON:
Complaint Y: February 4, 2013 >> OM-13-00819 referral back >> Complaint January 3, 2014 >> Defense AEGON >> Reply Y >> Rejoinder AEGON with beautiful provisional results >> Recommendation Ombudsman on April 24, 2014
Against such overwhelming evidence, not even the Ombudsman is immune. About these complaints AEGON has been bombarded already since 2004, in various sizes and shapes: directly by the victims themselves, through the Association of Consumer & Finance or GESP, through Payback Association and Spirit Foundation, through BeursKlacht, after the bankruptcy of Beursklacht on their own, and finally through ClaimConcept. Resulting in above-mentioned favorable Verdict GC 2013-332 November 15, 2013: the application on inadmissibility was rejected, the verdict upheld for 60%, with legal interest up to 2004! Altogether 100% payback!
Nice? Nope, AEGON simply refuses to execute the judgment. Inside information? >> Follow the Money !
Onwards to the Disputes Committee! Piece of cake? No way. AEGON is trying everything to avoid conviction, often with totally contradictory viewpoints, but above all AEGON wants solely a load criterion: Could you pay the theft or not? Sure it was wrong, but you wore a challenging short skirt, right? The pressure from the financial sector must have been immense, with procedures that are anything but accessible and fast.
Kifid, until autumn 2014: "On the argument that it follows from the judgments of the Supreme Court ruled on June 5, 2009 that the Committee can not deviate from the contained formula for resolving disputes over leasing products, the Committee will pass."
The Supreme Court on June 5, 2009 in BH2815 : "4.4.2 If it was not sufficiently clear to the consumer, he has the obligation trying harder to understand the scope of the contract work, with or without the help of others" As stated bij judge A. Hammerstein, also CEO at Kifid.
Followed by his own Kifid, until autumn 2014: "4.2.4 That is even more to blame now the Member has made the product available to a wide audience and not directly, but offered through agents. This way, the Member made the quality of the information partially dependent on middlemen. "
And even Amsterdam Court (!) on March 5, 2013 in GHAMS: 2013: 5265: "4.9 Even a consumer can be expected to read through an agreement before signing it, and try to understand it; he can't do it by himself, he has the obligation to ask further questions, or to the seller itself, or to the intermediary, or by an outside expert. " Unfortunely , the lawyer Leaseproces obviously did not have the Cooperation Agreement. At your service, Rutger!
It corresponds also to the judgement of the Court at 's-Hertogenbosch in summer 2014 paragraphs 4:15:20 to 4:15:23: no unacceptable burden, but still a reimbursement at 80% of the investment:
If the agent has advised the product and Dexia knew this, or at least should have known, the responsibility for these unauthorized operations effect service, and thus the resulting responsibility, then also at Dexia.
Not only delivering address data but personal advice, sole recommendation and even hard selling through call-centers, of which AEGON was very well aware. As recently could be demonstrated effectively on the basis of the Cooperation Agreement, included in Verdict RBZWB: 2015:2165 on March 18, 2015 and in line with Kifid until the end of 2014:
"7.1.14 From the above it follows that not only proved the theorem that the intermediary has advised to enter into the agreement with Aegon, but also that with this Cooperation Agreement Aegon highly encouraged its intermediary financially to sell its specific product to the potential buyer. This implies that they had the knowledge, or at least ought to know."
AEGON has to prove otherwise. Mission impossible, in review of this interview with salesdirector Theo Bouts 2002: "Moreover, the intermediary can now, by combining banking and insurance products, make his advisory function even better."
Best practice? It will certainly not succeed, given Article 6 Cooperation Agreement:
"AEGON recognizes the relationship of Intermediate, the person that closes an agreement with AEGON trough Intermediate. Without the consent of Intermediate, AEGON will never approach the referred relationship of Intermediate directly, including a change of intermediate, or a commercial direct attempt to achieve these relationships, nor commercial promotion. "
A total fail, given the Internal Logistics Applications of AEGON related products :
"The next day the contract is sent to the Intermediate" and "For the termination, a pro forma calculation is sent to the Intermediate"
Wait and see what this all means for Mrs.Y! The procedure with the Disputes Committee: >> Complaint GC 14-00237 May 5, 2014 >> Defence AEGON July 2, 2014 >> Reply Y July 17, 2014 and finally Rejoinder AEGON July 25, 2014 with completely out of the blue a letter from Chairman Du Perron dated July 17, 2014!
And then back to Mr. X with exactly the same procedure:>> Complaint GC 14-00176 May 1, 2014 >> Defence AEGON July 2, 2014 >> Reply X July 17, 2014 >> Rejoinder AEGON July 31, 2014, again with this same infamous nonsense letter of Du Perron dated July 17, 2014: on complaints other than these two!
A letter from the Chairman Disputes Committee Prof. CE (Edgar) du Perron, usually a very competent honorable Professor at Amsterdam University, also judge at Amsterdam Court of Appeal and recently nominated at the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. A letter including half-truths and whole lies, turning the entire previous 10 year old line at Kifid totally upside down. Suspended from a judge's incidental remark, a substantive empty phrase in a Verdict from the Committee of Appeal GCHB 2014-021 on July 1, 2014. Under the chairmanship of a female judge at Amsterdam Court! After the complaint was declared 'barred' and was not substantively reviewed, at the end this sneaky tiny consideration 'obiter dictum':
"As to the appeal of the consumer - breach of the special duty of care by Dexia - it is paramount that Dexia has not denied that it breached its duty of care indeed.The parties disagree whether Dexia is held to compensate the damage alleged by the consumer. In assessing to this dispute the judgments of the Supreme Court of June 5, 2009 and April 29, 2011 are leading. Summarized, it means that Dexia, in principle, should take two-thirds of the outstanding debt on its behalf and that the interest paid is not recoverable, unless the share agreement puts an unacceptable burden on the customer."
And the Dispute Committee of Kifid? In the long beautiful summer of 2014 out of the blue came this complete 180 degrees setback: "Our appeal body and the governmental judging should be followed up with a formula developed by some courts!" Some courts? Amsterdam Court thus, right at the moment that court houses outside Amsterdam Court are following more and more the previous opinion of Kifid, grounded in judgments of the Supreme Court. Even in Amsterdam RBAMS: 2015:1476 March 17, 2015!
A letter that impossibly could be related to the complaints of Mr. X or Ms. Y, because Kifid received our last possible reply of July 17, 2014 on July18, 2014! It is extremely suspicious that AEGON could rejoin so swift in the middle of the summer holidays, within a week after receiving the letter from Du Perron dated July 17, 2014
The result for Mrs.Y, after a long long wait? Still responsive, but no compensation because there is no outstanding debt? Did we mention that she was a Ghanaian refugee, eventually given shelter by a Dutch family? A refugee who earned in 1998 £ 289 gross a month as a cleaner on a temporary basis? Investing each month £ 50 in her Sprintplan as a study plan for her son, a 10-year old boy she had to leave behind with her family in Ghana?
Foisted by an AEGON advisor to whom AEGON also was referring on questions, not only during the policy but also at the end of the term! Strictly illegal and exactly the reason why until autumn 2014 Kifid judged negative on an incometest afterwards: "The proposition that from the verdicts of the Supreme Court ruled on June 5, 2009 follows that the Committee can not deviate from the containing formula, fails because AEGON did not sell its prduct directly but through intermediaries. It has made the quality of the information partly dependant on those intermediaries." Article 6 of the Cooperation Agreement!
A complete setback in the year 2015: the way such a policy was sold is not relevant anymore (by other courts referred to as the 'Hofmodel Amsterdam'), but only the '(un)acceptable burden' according to a formula from Amsterdam Court. Kifid judges now that Mrs.Y was wrong not profiding AEGON at first request not only her own income data from 1998, but also that of her current husband, a good Samaritan who often gave shelter to refugees. A man also at nett minimum wage, stuffed to the throat with saving plans and related structures such as shareleasing (3 pieces): Try to find the differences in the line-up at the top of this page!
Eventually something beautiful flourished, because "2.1 At the time of the conclusion she lived with a Dutch man, which she married in 2006," In the dictum of the verdict Kifid judges as if the marriage already took place before the start of the policy in 1998:
"4.15 The capacity calculation that AEGON received in December 2011 could AEGON leave aside, while the income of the spouse of Y is not included. Despite the burden of proof Y did not profide evidence that at the commencement of the Agreement the amount of € 68,07 for the family income - the income of Y and her spouse - constituted a disproportionate heavy burden."
Dear Judge, why didn't you just ask, "doesn't every consumer still have those income data from 1998 or 1997?" (No kidding, famous words from a female judge at Amsterdam Court as a Chairman of the Committee of Appeal during a hearing at the end of 2014!). It is not only questionable if AEGON can make its case file complete with income data afterwards without legal grounds, but judges fully taking over propositions from AEGON without calculating it themselves, that is just so insane:
X - W - A - B - C <Y + Y + 0.1 * 0.15 * (X - Y) =
936 -? - 238 -? -? < 851 + 85.10 + 0.15 * (936 - 851) = 698 < 850 = - 251
Why not an unacceptably heavy burden?
The most shocking is that the advice criterion of the Supreme Court is visible bypassed with lies:
"4:13 Y can not rely on lack of information even without being bound to any kind of own personal research. (...) By returning the signed contract form Y accepted the offer to enter into the Agreement. She had before that momen the opportunity to study the AEGON contract form. By accurate cognizance of the contract form, it should have become clear to Y what risks she ran into." Open the Application Form Sprintplan November 16, 1998 and judge for yourself.
"If she had chosen not to return the contract signed, she could have resinged from the contract" Please check the Agreement of November 30, 1998 with commencement date 04-01-1999 and judge for yourself what Y would or could have (re)signed.
Based on the Cooperation Agreement AEGON encouraged hardselling through its intermediary National Mortgage & Insurances, not only at the start but also during and after entering into Sprintplan. Just like AEGON-subidiairy Labouchere (via Legio-Lease), many others were approached by Boiler Rooms mostly in early in the evening after dinner. The words 'Koud' and 'Telefonisch' at this Order-form meaning 'Cold Calling'! And would there ring any alarm bells about the risks because of this letter at Christmas 2001 on capital accumulation in the Sprintplan ? "You may know that your capital is built up through the AEGON GuaranteeFund"?
And what is the Verdict GC-2015-120 April 15, 2015 of the Dispute Committee nowadays, about the realization of the policy?
"4.16 The argument that the product is not suitable for its purpose, namely financing the study of her son left in Ghana, the Committee considers that, given the inherent risks of the product and the relatively short duration ...";
"... But not regarding AEGON, as an intermediary company not aware of and not involved in balancing the objective of Y with the product."
No, not AEGON of course, but that is exactly the accusation of violating the Dutch Securities law 1995 / Further Regulations 1999 AEGON was reprimanded for by the AFM (Dutch SEC) late 2001 and where the previous Kifid jurisprudence was based on! "Not Regarding AEGON", a way of saying "Wir haben es nicht gewusst".
The result for 80 year old Mr. X, after an even longer wait? Eventually responsive, but of course no compensation because there is no outstanding debt! Did we mention that this was an elderly couple, with only primary school and after a long life as a simple waiter with almost only state pension? Who at the end of 1999 tried to save a little money for their grandchildren with Sprintplan at ƒ350 a month with 8.3% alleged guarantee. A premium that eventually turned out to be the interest rate on a underlying loan of ƒ 52,500, with ditto rate risks on a so-called GuaranteeFund? Christmas 1999 warmly recommended by consultant Finalim and Christmas 2001 still uncertain of the risks to their investment in Sprintplan: "You may know that your capital is built up through the AEGON GuaranteeFund."
If still relevant, not an unacceptably heavy load? Even with the gross income data from 2000 AEGON picks as a reference, the 'Hofmodel Amsterdam' shows disastrous results:
X - W - A - B - C < Y + Y + 0.1 * 0.15 * (X - Y) =
1225-208 - 555 -? -? < 786 + 78.60 + 0.15 * (1225 - 786) = 462 < 930 = - 468
Verdict GC-2015-121 Arpil 15, 2015: Lying in Committee, we can not put it otherwise! A Committee still refusing to make its own calculation! Carelessness, unwillingness, or is it intentional?
It's gonna be very exciting on Complaint Z: June 12, 2014 >> Defense AEGON September 26, 2014 >> Reply Z November 14, 2014 >> Rejoinder AEGON December 9, 2014 and at last this disappointing Rejection from the Ombudsman January 8, 2015
Besides a continuous 'compensation offer' (based on what?), AEGON has obviously always immediately rejected the complaints in general since 2003. Directly to the complainant himself, through the Association Consumer & Finance, again directly, as a defense to the class-actions (Art.3:305a DCC) and finally in 2014 through ClaimConcept:
"Z has sent a letter to Aegon on August 4, 2003 in which he communicates his joining this association and further that he reserves all rights in respect to the agreement.The association started a class-action against Aegon, currently still running at Amsterdam Court" A 3:305a DCC procedure!
"I note that early 2003 Z has presented a complaint to Aegon concerning the Sprintplan Agreement, which Aegon rejected shortly after" Yes, standard procedure, isn't it?
I also note that Z was aware of the end result of this agreement since August 2003. After that, the complaint is resubmitted to Aegon not earlier than 2011 and 2012 (by Z itself) or 2014 (by you). I consider this period of inactivity amply too long to speak of submission the complaint within the established deadline" Dear Sir, what about 3: 305a DCC procedure in 14.1 Section C Regulation?
As icing on the cake: "In 2003 Z should have adressed his complaint to the Dispute Committee DSI" (Predecessor of Kifid)
Dear Ombudsman, as frequently stated and never invalidated by AEGON: AEGON was not connected to your DSI!