Two readers with complaints against life assurance companies are keen to warn others that you need to read the small print carefully when buying savings policies. They are adding their voices to those of others who believe there should be an independent regulator for the insurance industry.

In 1988 Mr H bought an Irish Life "MoneySpinner" savings policy to help him pay for his children's education. Paying in just £40 a month, he specifically asked for a 10-year savings term and this was duly noted on the policy schedule and tax relief certificate he received from the company and a letter he received from his broker responding to his initial inquiry.

Six years later he decided to check the policy value, only to discover that after paying in £3,087, the policy was now worth £2,718.

Irish Life reminded him that "between 1987 and 1993 factors such as the Gulf War, the worldwide recession, high interest rates and the currency crisis all caused depressed growth on stock markets and these factors fed into your fund value. However, there is already cause for optimism that a market recovery may be imminent.

"I would point out," the Irish Life letter continued, "that your policy is designed as a long-term investment and our costs and investment strategy are designed to benefit customers that remain invested over the longer term. . . for a minimum of 15 years to maximise the opportunity for growth."

After reading about other highprofile cases of misselling, Mr H now believes that he was deliberately missold his policy. It is Mr H's view that the broker must have been aware that 10 years was not sufficient time for his fund to build up sufficient profits to meet his education fees requirement but sold it anyway because of the substantial commission involved.

Mr H claims that he has recently sought redress from Irish Life but to no avail and then pursued the case with the Insurance Ombudsman who was unable to investigate the case because broker sales fall outside her terms of reference. Our reader decided as a last resort to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of State for Enterprise and Employment, Mr Treacy, who has responsibility for the insurance industry: he wants Mr Treacy to immediately appoint an independent regulator for the industry to prevent further misselling.

Meanwhile, Mr B from Mallow, Co Cork, wants to warn others that quotations received from a life assurer should not necessarily be taken at face value.

Last spring, Mr B inquired about taking out a single premium personal pension with Friends First; he was specifically interested in the company's First Stewardship ("ethical") Fund which specifically avoids investing in tobacco or armament manufacturers or companies who benefit from animal experiments or employ child labour.

The quotation he received from Friends First provided him with two illustrations of projected fund values at retirement if the fund achieved a steady growth rate of 7 or 9 per cent per annum. When he examined the associated charges, Mr B noticed that this particular fund carried an annual management fee that was 1.125 per cent, but the illustration reflected the more standard charge of 0.75 per cent per annum. When he inquired, the company adjusted the 7 and 9 per cent growth illustrations downwards by £13,000 and £31,000 respectively.

"I was told in a separate telephone conversation with the representative that the discrepancy arose because the software used to generate the quote did not support the charges applicable to this particular fund. Though I had not yet paid the premium [a £10,000 lump sum], I expected that Friends First would honour the original quote, if only as a gesture of good faith. However, they ruled this out completely."

Mr B has taken this case to the Ombudsman, despite the fact "it may not be possible to legally compel Friends First to honour the quote they supplied me since I paid no premiums. What would be the legal position of someone who took up such a pension on the basis of a misleading illustrative projection and only subsequently discovered the error? In the absence of an independent regulator for the industry, can anything be done?"

Financial advisers to whom Family Money spoke to say that computer quotations are standardised and nearly all assume an annual management charge of 0.75 per cent. Some, but not all companies have adapted their software packages to take account of a different charging structure.

A spokesperson for Friends First was not available for comment.