The short answer is no. I’ve had a lot of letters asking this sort of question in the past few weeks, which is worrying because I suspect there are many people who don’t understand how endowment compensation works — and consequently are making quite the wrong decisions.

Endowments are judged to be mis-sold if there is evidence that the company concerned did not properly explain to the buyer that there was an investment risk involved — the risk that the endowment might fail to pay off the mortgage at the end of the term.

Compensation is then calculated by comparing the buyer’s current situation, using the current surrender value of the endowment, with how much capital he would have repaid, had he taken out a repayment mortgage instead. The difference between the two is then awarded as compensation.

In many cases, however, the surrender value of the policy at the time of the complaint more than matched the amount of capital that would have been repaid — so the policyholder had suffered no loss and consequently no compensation was due.

However, from this point on, it is assumed that buyers realise that their policy involves investment risk. If they want to avoid any risk in future, all they have to do is surrender the policy and use the proceeds (plus any compensation) to pay down the loan, swapping to a repayment mortgage for the remainder of the term. If they’re prepared to keep the policy going, they must take on board the investment risk themselves.

It is a cardinal rule of the financial ombudsman scheme that compensation is never payable purely because an investment turns out to be more disappointing than its buyer hopes. It cannot be otherwise. No investment manager could stay in business if it had to compensate people whenever stock markets fell. As long as the risk has been properly explained to people before they buy, then they must take that risk on the chin. To put it more brutally, if they can’t stand the heat, they shouldn’t be in the kitchen.

Receipts show too much information

RP writes: Am I the only person who is concerned that all my card details are printed in full on chip-and-Pin receipts? Yesterday I was given a receipt with the full card number, issue number, issue date and expiry date printed on it. All it needs is for someone who knows my name to pick it up and they could use my details on the internet or by post.

In fact, the introduction of chip-and-Pin cards has not changed anything here. Most big retailers have installed machines that automatically blank out some sections of the card number. However, smaller retailers are taking longer to get the software installed, according to the Association for Payment Clearing Services, which is masterminding the chip-and-Pin changeover. At least there is a time limit on this: by mid-2006, all retailers will have to issue receipts with blanked-out numbers.

As for internet and postal transactions, many — but, again, not all — retailers are now asking for the three-digit security code on the magnetic strip on the back of the card, so fraudsters who do not actually have your card in their possession would be unable to comply.

Meanwhile, as you are aware, it’s important to keep receipts for a while and, if the full number is shown, you should make sure you shred or destroy them before throwing them out with your rubbish.