Insurance companies and non disclosure.

pedro123456

Thanks FH....just a few things you say.....legal if agreed, well I'm not convinced that should be the case and IF by law it is.......then maybe it should be challenged ..........if you sell me an Insurance policy, there comes a time when I have to sign on the dotted line to accept T&C....yes.

These T&C are not eplained, however once you have signed you have to exept them, so you have to except somethings you hadn't a clue about...........furthermore you have to accept the IC definitions of a CI illness, and again these are not explained, although you will be told what they are maybe.



When I was sold the all singing all dancing CI, disability, income protection policy the only thing I walked out knowing was how much a month it would cost, and.........oh if I hadn't taken it out I wouldn't have got the loan.........no if's or but's.

My point being .Insurance bodies and Medical bodies have an agreement/guidelines but neither of them stick to it"

IC shouldn't be allowed by law to make you sign you accept T&C until you are fully aware of what your signing and agreeing too.................they are all bandits...........and they are a law unto themselves.

Its all about opinions though at the end of the day.........I dont trust IC through personel experience........but can I just ask you say "if you look at your FULL POLICY WORDING "......well when do you get to see them................is it when they reject your claim ?

ps I know IC suffer from fraudulant claims, unfortunatly this is just ppl being ppl.

We have to suffer crime in every day life and IC are no different,,,,,,,,,,like crime fraudulant claims are a statistic..............we add more locks, IC make their illness definitions harder to meet.

As for the ABI...........they are just minders for the bandits.

Ta............

OshayAway

pedro123456 wrote: »

you say "if you look at your FULL POLICY WORDING "......well when do you get to see them................is it when they reject your claim ?

This industry is regulated and very strict about what information is provided and when. The full policy wording is provided when the policy is taken out, usually within 5 - 10 days of the policy start date. Key facts documents are provided to accompany the illustration (quote) befor the policy is applied for. Technical guides are available on request pre-sale and contact the same definitions (specific criteria and exclusions) as the policy document.

dacouch

Firstly it is illegal for your bank to tell you they will only loan you money if you take Insurance Policies out with them. If you feel you have been miss sold the cover (Which is not that unusual with banks) then you can go through the processes of recovering the premiums or part of the premiums.

Insurers do not like their policyholders taking out a policy they do not understand and would rather you were fully aware of the policy conditions and any exclusions. From what you are saying it was the Bank and not the Insurance Company that did not explain the cover to you.

An Insurance Policy is in effect a contract that both you and the Insurer enter into, you are entitled to see a copy of the Policy which forms part of the contract before you sign on the dotted line.

If you have an issue with Insurers its pointless taking it up with the ABI as they are a trade organisation and by definition want to assist Insurance Companies. You should petition the Financial Services Authority who oversea Insurance Companies and companies who sell Insurance. They are incredibly consumer focused so would listen to any problems you have

For the record I do not work for an Insurance company but am a broker and I always ensure my customers understand the policy they are taking out. With most products now days the policy is given to you immediately or within a few days. In addition from receipt of the policy document you now have a 14 day cooling off period to enable customers to read the policy document (Unfortunately most don't) and decide whether its suitable or not.

By the way FH Brit does not work for an Insurer either he collects money owed to Florida Hospitals that is owed to them by UK holiday makers who either did not have Travel or Medical Insurance or whose policy did not pay out for any number of reasons. He is in effect playing devils advocate between the Insurers and Policyholders and posts on MSE to try and assist members on their problems are warn them of not taking the correct cover or miss informing their Insurers.

FH_Brit

Pedro - Legal if agreed = signed and accepted by both parties (and of course the contract is not contrary to common law)

The trouble is that nowadays with internet selling etc, there is always that little sentace on schedules and the click box on web sites that say something like;
I agree
Full policy available on request
I have read and agree to the terms
By clicking I agree.......
etc etc etc

After clicking you have "signed" and agreed. Ask yourself, how many times hav I clicked I agree on a website without reading it all?

And again - as I have said Many Many times on MSE this is a very generalised subject, unless I (or any other poster) see the actual policy you cannot be 100% sure. Guidance only - Reader Beware!

OP - Call the FSA Insurance Ombudsman Service 0845 080 1800 for some advice, they will let you know if a "clause" is legal or not.

pedro123456

I'll reply seperately if no one minds.

Oshay......."The full policy wording is provided when the policy is taken out, usually within 5 - 10 days of the policy start date"......I wont to say you are wrong, however In my opinion you are missguided. much like many other ppl.

I have ever scrap of paper work given to me by the RBS/RSA and all original from 10 year ago.............there is no FULL POLICY WORDING-never has been -I,ve requested them.......never got them, although they did send part of them eventually, they were poorly photo copied and Dates as to when they were published was un readable.................In fact ever other thing you have stated I have found "not to be right"

We all know what the IC are "supposed to provide and do" but if it suits they dont provide or do it as already stated.....they have agreements with the medical bodies............and dont stick to them...............it's not my opinion its a fact.................they dont do what they have agreed to do..............and it should be illegal.

and as for them being strictly regulated, thats a joke too, the next time they are being regulated will be the first time..............same goes for their minders the ABI..........criminals.

Anyway thanks for your comments, & please dont see my responce as an attack ,

Its just my opinion ..........that IC do and have always pleased themselves and been supported by the law to deal with insurance claims as they see fit irrespective of agreements and guidelines.

Why is there so little public faith in the insurance industry?.............because quite correctly the public dont trust them.......but the "general public" apply for a claim the insurance company says no...........the individual drops it, occasionally a small percentage challenge it.................the IC shouts for the hills the ppl are fraudulantly claiming............It's clled "spin" I think.

Ta Pete

pedro123456

Dacouch..............thank you for your input........if you are trying to convince me IC like the policy holder to fully understand the policy they are taking out......forget it.......most individuals are not interlectually inclined enough to deal with and understand the little black wording under the signature.........they are hood winked from the word go (IMO of course), it's 'because' of the small print they are able and more than willing to wriggle out of settlement..........with unfortunatly the support of the law..........which incidently is in correct.

I'll explain soon.......well in my case i'll explain.

ABI............yes you are on the button..........they are minders for the bandits..............bandit pay them money.......ABI protect them.......simple....shoud be illegal.

Now this is the interesting part "For the record I do not work for an Insurance company but am a broker and I always ensure my customers understand the policy they are taking out"............thats brilliant however.

IFA's............there appears to be quit a few of them around, you sell insurance and you get commission so in effect it's in your interest to promote the value of Insurance policies...................but what IMO you dont understand is the banks are trying to shift responsibility
onto you and away from themselves.

My policy was bought from the RBS and sold to me by a member of the RBS........I was introduced by the business manager "this is Mr Ivor Getoutclause he's our finacial advisor, he'll talk you through some things (word for wordexcetp the name and no he wasn't related to Santa)

My guess is that I couldn't do that now, any avice about the suitability will not come from a fella or woman working for the bank..........and when things go breast up so to speak ...........all you IFA's will take the flack.........not the banks.

Ta Pete

pedro123456

FH Brit.

ok.............firstly buying over the internet and click clicking cannot be compared to buying face to face something such as insurance from either a IFA or a finacial institution.

Now.............my argument is that Full medical history has been agreed by BOTH the insurance ppl and the medical ppl for eg. this is what is writen in their JOINT guidelines The full records are not necessary and will very probably include information that is not relevant

ok.....so that understood....the IC ask for FMH (which clearly according to the above they shouldn't) and the GP supplies the FMH and again as above clearly he/she shouldn't.

So you say or it's implied that just because the IC make you agree to their T&C that it's ok to ask for FMH against this obvious breach or agreements........am I right so far.......if I am.......its wrong and ought to be illegal.

Now........I send in my claim -the IC send me a application form I fill it in on signing it I declare I am "telling them the truth" etc etc

But also they send me a "declaration of consent", I signed it, and sent it back,

This consent says (well mine does).............."to enable us to deal with your claim it will be necessary for us to obtain medical history from all doctors who have attended you" that is what ive signed for and that is what I've agreed to...........

I havent agreed to them haveing my Full medical history, I have signed to say "obtain medical history from all doctors who have attended" this "history" as it were..........must be relevent as stated in guidelines.

And as set down in the JOINT ABI-BMA guidelines and this is what the guidelines say...............
Only relevant information should be provided and it is ethically unacceptable to
Provide extraneous information. Doctors must not send originals, photocopies or printouts of full medical records in lieu of medical reports and ABI members should not accept them.

The full records are not necessary and will very probably include
information that is not relevant to the insurance being applied for. Insurance
companies are entitled only to information which is relevant to the policy, and disclosure or other processing of irrelevant information is likely to breach the Data Protection Act 1998.

So is this statement correct

Pedro - Legal if agreed = signed and accepted by both parties (and of course the contract is not contrary to common law......

No I signed to give relevant History as laid down by guidelines, by some stroke of genius the IC's solicitors will convince a judge that me signing on the dotted line has somehow given the IC's to raid through all my PMH...............and make no mistake.......if during the set up of the initial insurance.....the question is asked "have you ever suffered depression".....and you say no.........the IC will check through your FMH and if it's found that you had in fact suffered for a few week off depression...........your claim goes out of the window...........non disclosure and yes the FOS will take up your complain if you are indeed fit and well enough to complain to him.............10-12 month later just like a judge the IC's manage to persuade FOS they were allowed full access because you signed on the line....

IMO the IC's make so much money they can afford to employ the legal profession to tie ever loophole up and they do.............If they can con the government, judges and FOS, it's a doddle to con the ppl..............and thats just what they do.........in My opinion of course...........

If any finacial institution would care to take me to court for referring to them as bandits........fell free to do so.

ta.......Pete

Atermis

round and round he goes, being fed and fed until he explodes.

mattymoo

Atermis wrote: »

round and round he goes, being fed and fed until he explodes.

Sorry but that made me chuckle.

pedro123456

me too matty..........lol..............lets sit him/her on a stool in the corner and let him/her listen, we could maybe feed him/her pop/crisps....and show him/her hiw to do joined up thinking/writing...........