bobs, I work for a company who investigates claims of misselling on behalf of a number of the big life offices, and if the complaint is upheld, we do the redress calculations. I don't actually work on the cases myself; my understanding of the whole process is a bit hazy, so bear with me.
It is correct that the redress (not compensation - that is something different) is supposed to put you back in the position you would be in now if you had taken out a repayment mortgage. Everything Portree says is correct.
What you say about not having the risks explained to you in the first place is the reason that you have been offered compensation - when assessing a case, all available information is looked at, such as the "fact find" that would (should) have been completed at the time, your job, income etc at the time, the suitability of the policy for your needs. As I say, the company have obviously decided that your complaint was valid, and that is why they have offered redress. What they will not do is compensate for the fact that the financial markets have not performed as well as the salesmen were so confident it would. And that, of course is the galling thing.
We also worked on pensions misselling cases, again, people were badly advised, and their losses were then compounded by the poor performance of the financial markets. (And I often wonder if they would have been so quick to complain that they had left their company scheme if the markets had performed better)
I don't think that the Ombudsman will be able to do anything, but if you've got the energy, why not give it a try. Some firms offer compensation for distress and/or inconvenience - can you make a further claim on this basis? Although I don't think they offer much - you're talking £50 - £500 max, I would think.
Hope some of this has been helpful.