Mis-sold life insurance? Suspend payments?
Discussion
Fastpedeller said:
But is it that simple? I didn't refuse advice, and thought I knew what I was buying. Would you consider it ok for a car dealer to sell a punter a car without an engine and say "well he didn't ask if it had one or not". There are regulation to protect the consumer. They also apply (it would seem) to insurance policies. I'm not looking for a fight, just constructive advice.
You are beginning to talk rubbish now, if your going to go the ombudsman make sure you are clear and concise on how you believe the company missold you the policy.If you didn’t know you had life insurance already via pensions it is going to be difficult to prove that the insurance company should have known.
tighnamara said:
Fastpedeller said:
But is it that simple? I didn't refuse advice, and thought I knew what I was buying. Would you consider it ok for a car dealer to sell a punter a car without an engine and say "well he didn't ask if it had one or not". There are regulation to protect the consumer. They also apply (it would seem) to insurance policies. I'm not looking for a fight, just constructive advice.
You are beginning to talk rubbish now, if your going to go the ombudsman make sure you are clear and concise on how you believe the company missold you the policy.If you didn’t know you had life insurance a,ready via pensions it is going to be difficult to prove that the insurance company should have known.
Fastpedeller said:
More than 2 of the pensions were with the same company. My point is they didn't ask any details of our circumstances, or point out key points of the policy we were buying - they were economical with the truth.
I don’t see what key points the didn’t tell you, thinking that a policy would pay out after the 35 years is not missselling.As asked previously, when did you think the policy would stop and not pay out on death ?
I used to sell life insurance as a summer job. I wasn’t allowed to give advice as only qualified financial advisers are allowed.
What you can do is give facts and the paperwork which explains everything.
So you have no case saying they didn’t advise you, as it’s actually illegal if they did.
In all honesty you are going to have to chalk this one up as being a bit naive and ignorant.
As I’m reading it, you thought you would pay £50 a month for 35 years, then whenever you died you would receive the lump sum payout of day a few hundred grand?
I have to say you are not alone in thinking that as I used to get the odd customer who thought that and when it was explained they thought it was a con.
Unfortunately I really don’t think you have any case here.
What you can do is give facts and the paperwork which explains everything.
So you have no case saying they didn’t advise you, as it’s actually illegal if they did.
In all honesty you are going to have to chalk this one up as being a bit naive and ignorant.
As I’m reading it, you thought you would pay £50 a month for 35 years, then whenever you died you would receive the lump sum payout of day a few hundred grand?
I have to say you are not alone in thinking that as I used to get the odd customer who thought that and when it was explained they thought it was a con.
Unfortunately I really don’t think you have any case here.
craig1912 said:
craig1912 said:
Fastpedeller said:
More than 2 of the pensions were with the same company. My point is they didn't ask any details of our circumstances, or point out key points of the policy we were buying - they were economical with the truth.
What have pensions got to do with life assurance?Mis-sold insurance is when a policy is sold by an insurance provider to a customer, without the customer receiving accurate information (and advice) about how the policy works. A provider has a duty to ensure the insurance they're selling is suitable for a consumer's needs and circumstances.
Fastpedeller said:
The pensions would have provided for the partner left - the policy wasn't necessary. We didn't realise this at the time. It appears the providers should have looked into our circumstances
Mis-sold insurance is when a policy is sold by an insurance provider to a customer, without the customer receiving accurate information (and advice) about how the policy works. A provider has a duty to ensure the insurance they're selling is suitable for a consumer's needs and circumstances.
You specifically knew you weren't getting advice.Mis-sold insurance is when a policy is sold by an insurance provider to a customer, without the customer receiving accurate information (and advice) about how the policy works. A provider has a duty to ensure the insurance they're selling is suitable for a consumer's needs and circumstances.
So I say again when you know you aren't getting advice, you won't be getting advice.
Fastpedeller said:
The pensions would have provided for the partner left - the policy wasn't necessary. We didn't realise this at the time. It appears the providers should have looked into our circumstances
Mis-sold insurance is when a policy is sold by an insurance provider to a customer, without the customer receiving accurate information (and advice) about how the policy works. A provider has a duty to ensure the insurance they're selling is suitable for a consumer's needs and circumstances.
So 16 years later you have realised this ?Mis-sold insurance is when a policy is sold by an insurance provider to a customer, without the customer receiving accurate information (and advice) about how the policy works. A provider has a duty to ensure the insurance they're selling is suitable for a consumer's needs and circumstances.
desolate said:
Fastpedeller said:
The pensions would have provided for the partner left - the policy wasn't necessary. We didn't realise this at the time. It appears the providers should have looked into our circumstances
Mis-sold insurance is when a policy is sold by an insurance provider to a customer, without the customer receiving accurate information (and advice) about how the policy works. A provider has a duty to ensure the insurance they're selling is suitable for a consumer's needs and circumstances.
You specifically knew you weren't getting advice.Mis-sold insurance is when a policy is sold by an insurance provider to a customer, without the customer receiving accurate information (and advice) about how the policy works. A provider has a duty to ensure the insurance they're selling is suitable for a consumer's needs and circumstances.
So I say again when you know you aren't getting advice, you won't be getting advice.
Fastpedeller said:
desolate said:
Fastpedeller said:
The pensions would have provided for the partner left - the policy wasn't necessary. We didn't realise this at the time. It appears the providers should have looked into our circumstances
Mis-sold insurance is when a policy is sold by an insurance provider to a customer, without the customer receiving accurate information (and advice) about how the policy works. A provider has a duty to ensure the insurance they're selling is suitable for a consumer's needs and circumstances.
You specifically knew you weren't getting advice.Mis-sold insurance is when a policy is sold by an insurance provider to a customer, without the customer receiving accurate information (and advice) about how the policy works. A provider has a duty to ensure the insurance they're selling is suitable for a consumer's needs and circumstances.
So I say again when you know you aren't getting advice, you won't be getting advice.
Actually You’re not even quoting regulations.
Fastpedeller said:
Reading the key features (for that type of policy) at the present time there are statement such as "If you stop paying the policy the cover ceases". Which to us seems reasonable. Our understanding (at the time we started the policy) was that (as long as we paid for the full 35 years) it paid out on death.
The mind boggles at such naivety!What was the monthly premium and how much was the payout on death?
rlg43p said:
Fastpedeller said:
Reading the key features (for that type of policy) at the present time there are statement such as "If you stop paying the policy the cover ceases". Which to us seems reasonable. Our understanding (at the time we started the policy) was that (as long as we paid for the full 35 years) it paid out on death.
The mind boggles at such naivety!What was the monthly premium and how much was the payout on death?
Flumpo said:
I used to sell life insurance as a summer job. I wasn’t allowed to give advice as only qualified financial advisers are allowed.
What you can do is give facts and the paperwork which explains everything.
So you have no case saying they didn’t advise you, as it’s actually illegal if they did.
In all honesty you are going to have to chalk this one up as being a bit naive and ignorant.
As I’m reading it, you thought you would pay £50 a month for 35 years, then whenever you died you would receive the lump sum payout of day a few hundred grand?
I have to say you are not alone in thinking that as I used to get the odd customer who thought that and when it was explained they thought it was a con.
Unfortunately I really don’t think you have any case here.
No 80k actually. If they had given us the full facts (instead of cherry-picking) then we would have known. So we are not alone - like all the PPI claimants (we didn't fall for that one). If they should have asked us for details of your circumstances and they failed to do that they are at fault.What you can do is give facts and the paperwork which explains everything.
So you have no case saying they didn’t advise you, as it’s actually illegal if they did.
In all honesty you are going to have to chalk this one up as being a bit naive and ignorant.
As I’m reading it, you thought you would pay £50 a month for 35 years, then whenever you died you would receive the lump sum payout of day a few hundred grand?
I have to say you are not alone in thinking that as I used to get the odd customer who thought that and when it was explained they thought it was a con.
Unfortunately I really don’t think you have any case here.
Flumpo said:
Fastpedeller said:
desolate said:
Fastpedeller said:
The pensions would have provided for the partner left - the policy wasn't necessary. We didn't realise this at the time. It appears the providers should have looked into our circumstances
Mis-sold insurance is when a policy is sold by an insurance provider to a customer, without the customer receiving accurate information (and advice) about how the policy works. A provider has a duty to ensure the insurance they're selling is suitable for a consumer's needs and circumstances.
You specifically knew you weren't getting advice.Mis-sold insurance is when a policy is sold by an insurance provider to a customer, without the customer receiving accurate information (and advice) about how the policy works. A provider has a duty to ensure the insurance they're selling is suitable for a consumer's needs and circumstances.
So I say again when you know you aren't getting advice, you won't be getting advice.
Actually You’re not even quoting regulations.
Fastpedeller said:
No 80k actually. If they had given us the full facts (instead of cherry-picking) then we would have known. So we are not alone - like all the PPI claimants (we didn't fall for that one). If they should have asked us for details of your circumstances and they failed to do that they are at fault.
So you thought you would pay 21k for a guaranteed pay out of 80k?Integroo said:
Fastpedeller said:
No 80k actually. If they had given us the full facts (instead of cherry-picking) then we would have known. So we are not alone - like all the PPI claimants (we didn't fall for that one). If they should have asked us for details of your circumstances and they failed to do that they are at fault.
So you thought you would pay 21k for a guaranteed pay out of 80k?Fastpedeller said:
Flumpo said:
Fastpedeller said:
desolate said:
Fastpedeller said:
The pensions would have provided for the partner left - the policy wasn't necessary. We didn't realise this at the time. It appears the providers should have looked into our circumstances
Mis-sold insurance is when a policy is sold by an insurance provider to a customer, without the customer receiving accurate information (and advice) about how the policy works. A provider has a duty to ensure the insurance they're selling is suitable for a consumer's needs and circumstances.
You specifically knew you weren't getting advice.Mis-sold insurance is when a policy is sold by an insurance provider to a customer, without the customer receiving accurate information (and advice) about how the policy works. A provider has a duty to ensure the insurance they're selling is suitable for a consumer's needs and circumstances.
So I say again when you know you aren't getting advice, you won't be getting advice.
Actually You’re not even quoting regulations.
If you want advice you have to go to a financial advisor.
Fastpedeller said:
So as a member of the general public I don't know the regulations - It seems the people selling may be the only ones who know? Typical PH responses from a lot of people here. Can you tell me (regarding my mis-quote) what the actual situation is? Are insurance sellers (or their agent) obliged by the regulations to find out the customers circumstances?
This is from the FCA website - "In non-advised sales, you do not make any personal recommendation and leave the customer to decide how they wish to proceed."So in a non advised sale they are specifically not allowed to give a personal recommendation.
2 points to note
You were sold this policy 16 years ago so the regulation were almost certainly different.
It's possible the paperwork is defective.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff