Mis-sold life insurance? Suspend payments?

[Fastpedeller]

I understand no case is black or white, but I'm hoping some legal eagles here can guide me on one aspect of this.

We took out a Life Insurance policy 16 years ago to cover us both, payment term 35 years.
Circumstances
Mortgage paid off
One dependent 5 years old as time
3 moderate personal pension each in place (ie 3 for me 3 for wife)
This was just to provide a little extra when either of us departs our mortal coil.
We now find (as an aside of going through all our paperwork for my pension about to mature) that the life policy only pays out if one of us dies during the payment term. We think we have been missold on the basis that it wasn't necessary (nobody would have been left homeless or starved without it if one of us died) . The product was sold online (through a 3rd party) and no advice was given, so the seller (who actively took over the selling eg arranging medicals) didn't ensure the policy was right for our circumstances.

All the above is 'our case', but the immediate questions I have are should we continue paying the premium? will it prejudice our case if we stop? or is there a way of 'putting on hold' the premiums whilst the matter is in dispute.
Thanks in anticipation.

[Fastpedeller]

desolate said:

When did you expect the policy to pay out?

It says on the proposal paperwork

Joint life cases - Sum assured to be paid on the first death

[Fastpedeller]

sparkythecat said:

Fastpedeller said:

I understand no case is black or white, but I'm hoping some legal eagles here can guide me on one aspect of this.

We took out a Life Insurance policy 16 years ago to cover us both, payment term 35 years.
Circumstances
Mortgage paid off
One dependent 5 years old as time
3 moderate personal pension each in place (ie 3 for me 3 for wife)
This was just to provide a little extra when either of us departs our mortal coil.
We now find (as an aside of going through all our paperwork for my pension about to mature) that the life policy only pays out if one of us dies during the payment term. We think we have been missold on the basis that it wasn't necessary (nobody would have been left homeless or starved without it if one of us died) . The product was sold online (through a 3rd party) and no advice was given, so the seller (who actively took over the selling eg arranging medicals) didn't ensure the policy was right for our circumstances.

All the above is 'our case', but the immediate questions I have are should we continue paying the premium? will it prejudice our case if we stop? or is there a way of 'putting on hold' the premiums whilst the matter is in dispute.
Thanks in anticipation.

See if you can convert it into a 'paid up' policy.
You stop paying premiums and get a severely reduced payout when you do eventually die.

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. It did not explicitly say it only pays out if you die within the 35 years. There was (we now understand because the pensions would provide for those left) no need for the cover, and this should have been discussed with us at the time we took out the policy.We were never sent either the key features of policy details. Yes we've been foolish, but these are professionals who are legally obliged to consider our circumstances (it seems from an online search), but failed to do this, although they invested time/effort to ensure we both had medicals.

[Fastpedeller]

desolate said:

Fastpedeller said:

It says on the proposal paperwork

Joint life cases - Sum assured to be paid on the first death

I see.
So we're you told it would payout after the 35 years was up?

we weren't told it wouldn't pay out after the 35 years was up - is that your question?

[Fastpedeller]

syl said:

If you no longer need it, stop paying. You may able be able to find fixed-term policy cheaper now, given increasing longevity.

I have a policy that will pay out up to my 60th birthday. It goes up 5% or RPI (whichever is higher) each year - the payment also goes up (by slightly more). I no longer need increasing cover, so will cancel the yearly uplift. I will probably cancel it altogether by the time I'm 55. I hope it doesn't need to pay out.

I'm 60 already. I'm reluctant to stop paying until the complaint raised has run its course, in case it ruins my case. ie. provider just says "there's no case because they've stopped the policy"

[Fastpedeller]

craig1912 said:

Not sure what you are complaining about.

Did you want a joint life second death policy?

Life assurance generally only ever pays out during the payment term- it was probably dirt cheap anyway. What exactly is the issue

£50 per month. Didn't want a second death policy. The limited paperwork we have didn't explicitly state it wouldn't pay out after 35 years. It did however state" sum assured to be paid on first death". It wouldn't have cost much ink to add "if it occurs within the 35 year period"
I add that we haven't lost any paperwork, we keep it all.
We now understand what TERM INSURANCE is, but didn't then. The professionals did, but didn't choose to inform us.

[Fastpedeller]

desolate said:

Fastpedeller said:

I'm 60 already. I'm reluctant to stop paying until the complaint raised has run its course, in case it ruins my case. ie. provider just says "there's no case because they've stopped the policy"

If the policy was sold without advice who are you complaining about?

From compare the market....
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.

Our policy was sold online by a supermarket, so I could ask the provider "why did you sell it via a 3rd party?" Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[Fastpedeller]

desolate said:

The ombudsman will rule pretty quickly but you specifically chose not to take advice when you quite literally didn't know what you were buying.

I have no idea if you will win or not, nothing surprises me anymore

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.

[Fastpedeller]

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.

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.

[Fastpedeller]

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?

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.

[Fastpedeller]

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.
So I say again when you know you aren't getting advice, you won't be getting advice.

But the regulations say the company should have asked about our circumstances. I think that's clear. Tell me if it isn't

[Fastpedeller]

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.

[Fastpedeller]

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.
So I say again when you know you aren't getting advice, you won't be getting advice.

But the regulations say the company should have asked about our circumstances. I think that's clear. Tell me if it isn't

No you’re mis quoting regulations you have read on a different website.

Actually You’re not even quoting regulations.

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?

[Fastpedeller]

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?

The money generated by that investment over those years - why not?

[Fastpedeller]

desolate said:

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.

Thanks

[Fastpedeller]

nikaiyo2 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.

Your analogy is flawed.

This is more akin to popping to Tesco and buying 3 Lemon Sole to put in your G&T, then blaming Tesco for selling a fish with a drink garnish in its name.

Ok - Using your analogy....
Big letters on box saying "Lemon Sole", and when you get home you open the box and there's only bits of lemon inside and no fish. Worse still if you put it straight in the freezer without opening the box and found out in 6 months time. You took it back to store and they said "you should have bought the fish in the 'transparent package' ( see what I did there) then you would have seen what you had.

[Fastpedeller]

KungFuPanda said:

Op, kill your wife or let your wife kill you.

I don't know if murder is covered by the policy - I'll have to check .... Oh blast, I can't because they never sent it.

[Fastpedeller]

tighnamara said:

Fastpedeller said:

I don't know if murder is covered by the policy - I'll have to check .... Oh blast, I can't because they never sent it.

So you have sat paying £35 a year for 16 years without a policy, says it all.
Didn’t you at anything in that 16 years actually wonder what you were paying for.

Yes now! I'm sure we aren't the first people to not notice documents haven't been sent - and we won't be the last

[Fastpedeller]

Ed/L152 said:

I bought some apples 10 years ago. I just realised today I only wanted oranges. Clearly I was miss-sold (I wasn't even asked if I liked apples). I have lost the receipt I wasn't given a receipt. Which ombudsman to whom I should complain?

Edited by Ed/L152 on Monday 18th March 09:38

But were they advertised as apples. Has your investment grown in the meantime, if not you should have a case

[Fastpedeller]

Piersman2 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. It did not explicitly say it only pays out if you die within the 35 years. There was (we now understand because the pensions would provide for those left) no need for the cover, and this should have been discussed with us at the time we took out the policy.We were never sent either the key features of policy details. Yes we've been foolish, but these are professionals who are legally obliged to consider our circumstances (it seems from an online search), but failed to do this, although they invested time/effort to ensure we both had medicals.

Above you've said above it clearly states that if you stop paying the policy the cover ceases.

When your agreed 35 year term is up you will stop paying the policy - the cover ceases.

It's there, in black and white, in the terms.

As said above, the relevant part ie as explained in 2019
Reading the key features (for that type of policy) at the present time