Mortgage Payment Protection - Why did I bother????
Discussion
Well, as some of you know, I was made redundant at the beginning of July, and have spent the last month gathering all the necessary paperwork to claim off my Redundnacy insurance for my mortgage.
I took out this policy when I bought the house in March. The claim came just outside the "3 months where we won't pay out cos you've not had the policy long enough" (paraphrased) clause.
Received a letter this morning, stating:
"It would appear that there was a redundancy process undertaken at {site and company I worked for} in December 2008. Under the terms of the policy {quoting a point in the terms and conditions} we will not pay for any unemployment we reasonably believe you knew was likely to happen, whether you had official notice or not, when you took out the policy."
Why did I bother taking out the policy then? The company I worked for, have made redundancies every year I've been there, and for legitamate reasons, such as kit replacement which doesn't need the same level of staffing to operate, as was the case in December, and the previous 2 rounds of redundancies.
Never once during these redundancy processes has it even been hinted at that the IT department would be affected.
Just makes my blood boil!
I took out this policy when I bought the house in March. The claim came just outside the "3 months where we won't pay out cos you've not had the policy long enough" (paraphrased) clause.
Received a letter this morning, stating:
"It would appear that there was a redundancy process undertaken at {site and company I worked for} in December 2008. Under the terms of the policy {quoting a point in the terms and conditions} we will not pay for any unemployment we reasonably believe you knew was likely to happen, whether you had official notice or not, when you took out the policy."
Why did I bother taking out the policy then? The company I worked for, have made redundancies every year I've been there, and for legitamate reasons, such as kit replacement which doesn't need the same level of staffing to operate, as was the case in December, and the previous 2 rounds of redundancies.
Never once during these redundancy processes has it even been hinted at that the IT department would be affected.
Just makes my blood boil!
They may just be having you on, with them knowing about lots of redundencies and because of the times they will be even more tight fisted gits than normal.
Write back explaining that you had no reason to believe their would ever be cut backs, etc in your department give details why, such as never had redunduncies from their before etc and that the IT department was already as streamlined as possible when you took out the policy.
If this still doesn't work then threaten them with court action, then DO IT! If you honestly had no reason to believe you were going then fight them, all the way.
Write back explaining that you had no reason to believe their would ever be cut backs, etc in your department give details why, such as never had redunduncies from their before etc and that the IT department was already as streamlined as possible when you took out the policy.
If this still doesn't work then threaten them with court action, then DO IT! If you honestly had no reason to believe you were going then fight them, all the way.
Sprry to hear this.
This is why, for me, I politely decline the offer of payement protection whenever I get a loan/mortgage (beyond where I am covered for being out of work due to injury/health/death).
There are too many scenarios where this payment will not be made, and I balance the risk against my ability to pay if I was to lose my job.
This is why, for me, I politely decline the offer of payement protection whenever I get a loan/mortgage (beyond where I am covered for being out of work due to injury/health/death).
There are too many scenarios where this payment will not be made, and I balance the risk against my ability to pay if I was to lose my job.
AndrewTait said:
scotal said:
Which provider are you with? P'shield?
Got it in one! Didn't really know anything about them, but was recommended by my Independant Fianancial Advisor when sorting out my mortgage etc. Wished I'd looked on line before hand, to see the number of people moaning about them.I shall certainly be speaking to my IFA, not had chance to do anything today, as I've been looking after my children.
But on Monday, I shall be speaking to p'shield, IFA, and CAB. Additionally, I shall speak to my old employers to see if they can supply any other documentation to prove when the decision was made about which departments were to be affected, and prove that I didn't know before I took out the policy, which appears to be the sticking point on this.
But on Monday, I shall be speaking to p'shield, IFA, and CAB. Additionally, I shall speak to my old employers to see if they can supply any other documentation to prove when the decision was made about which departments were to be affected, and prove that I didn't know before I took out the policy, which appears to be the sticking point on this.
Sorry for the bad news.
The 'shield' paid out on two occassions over the lest few years for me, and for over six months on each occassion, so I had no problems with them, but I guess each case is on its merits.
Argue your case, make a complaint, then go to the FOS. Doesnt help you in the short term though....
The 'shield' paid out on two occassions over the lest few years for me, and for over six months on each occassion, so I had no problems with them, but I guess each case is on its merits.
Argue your case, make a complaint, then go to the FOS. Doesnt help you in the short term though....
scotal said:
AndrewTait said:
scotal said:
Which provider are you with? P'shield?
Got it in one! Didn't really know anything about them, but was recommended by my Independant Fianancial Advisor when sorting out my mortgage etc. Wished I'd looked on line before hand, to see the number of people moaning about them.You should pursue proving to the insurer that there was absolutely no suggestion of you being made redundant at the time of the policy being administered.
For them to know there has been redundancies, they have obviously contacted the ex-employer - so contact them and try to find out what they have told the insurer.
vinnie83 said:
scotal said:
AndrewTait said:
scotal said:
Which provider are you with? P'shield?
Got it in one! Didn't really know anything about them, but was recommended by my Independant Fianancial Advisor when sorting out my mortgage etc. Wished I'd looked on line before hand, to see the number of people moaning about them.You should pursue proving to the insurer that there was absolutely no suggestion of you being made redundant at the time of the policy being administered.
For them to know there has been redundancies, they have obviously contacted the ex-employer - so contact them and try to find out what they have told the insurer.
If the IFA is any good then he will be able to speak to Paymentshield on your behalf to find out what evidence is acceptable. Of course he should also have made the client aware (and satisfied himself) that the policy had caveats about redundancy. If he felt the policy didnt fit then he shoudln't have sold it......
scotal said:
vinnie83 said:
scotal said:
AndrewTait said:
scotal said:
Which provider are you with? P'shield?
Got it in one! Didn't really know anything about them, but was recommended by my Independant Fianancial Advisor when sorting out my mortgage etc. Wished I'd looked on line before hand, to see the number of people moaning about them.You should pursue proving to the insurer that there was absolutely no suggestion of you being made redundant at the time of the policy being administered.
For them to know there has been redundancies, they have obviously contacted the ex-employer - so contact them and try to find out what they have told the insurer.
If the IFA is any good then he will be able to speak to Paymentshield on your behalf to find out what evidence is acceptable. Of course he should also have made the client aware (and satisfied himself) that the policy had caveats about redundancy. If he felt the policy didnt fit then he shoudln't have sold it......
I would have set up such a policy for a customer without a 2nd thought if it was a simple case, and the client had confirmed that they confirm they meet the criteria as stated in the T+C's. As long as I've explained the T+C's and what the consequences are of not being honest etc, I've done my job properly (unless I know the cleint is lying).
This seems more of a case of the insurer trying to wriggle out of paying, at a time where obvioiusly so many people are actually needing to claim on these policies, leaving the insurer out of pocket, not the IFA having sold a bad product.
vinnie83 said:
As long as I've explained the T+C's and what the consequences are of not being honest etc, I've done my job properly.
And that's the current view form the FSA as well...... however in the climate we have right now, knowing your client, their circumstances and the policy you're recommending is paramount. This is especially true of protection products froim providers who have a s
t rep in the first place. scotal said:
vinnie83 said:
As long as I've explained the T+C's and what the consequences are of not being honest etc, I've done my job properly.
And that's the current view form the FSA as well...... however in the climate we have right now, knowing your client, their circumstances and the policy you're recommending is paramount. This is especially true of protection products froim providers who have a s
t rep in the first place. In practise (you seem to be an experienced mortgage advisor / ifa) you know that customers will always try to go for the cheaper product!
Rarely do I get a customer who will chose a medically underwritten PHI, when they can get an inferior, cheaper product elsewhere that they think 'will do the job' - eg. MPPI.
If people understood that these products are more expensive for a reason, then fair enough - but I've come across hundreds of people who just want the cheapest product - and as such they get it.
It would be bad advice for me to recommend PHI, customer to decline because of cost, and me to leave them - I have to offer an alternative - which is MPPI. It's better to give them SOME cover than none at all.
You may disagree with what I've said, but I beleive that in the current climate, it's increasingly more difficult to encourage people to take out the correct, and best level of cover - at a time when the first thing people are cancelling are their 'non-essential' protection products.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff