Over Insured.........CARDIF PINNACLE

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Di, FOS have just taken a dislike to "all" MY complaints. I honestly feel like that. Obviously I am the scum of the earth.

They have pushed back again on my Hamilton case as well after 2 years!:eek: and I have even tried to tell them from the beginning it was HFC all along we had involvement with before the loan went ahead, its only now they agreed about going this way, so the adjudicator said he will move this on to the ombudsman and not to make another complaint, he will check to see the involvement of HFC.

Have this been posted on here before, can't remember?
http://www.financial-ombudsman-problems.co.uk/index.htm

marshallka

Before cancelling the MPPI we asked them about being over insured. They emailed to say someone is over insured if they insure for over "60%" of income. (we had 75% gross income already insured after 6 months full pay and it was through a "group works policy".)

I asked IFA's on here and each one said they had not heard of any insurer that would allow you to claim on multiple policies over 75% of income (regardless of what the policies covered).

We complained and asked for our premiums back as we were over insured. They agreed we were over insured and then a "manager" at Cardif stated we were over insured if we had PHI also (even BEFORE seeing the terms and conditions of our policy with work as they just KNEW that it was RULE for insurers and we had given them the details we had here that we were insured for 75% gross income upon accident, sickness or disability).

We then cancelled the insurance upon receiving the email about being over insured (before we complained) as we listened to them and THEIR email.

Now they are saying we could have had full use of both policies at the same time (even though both are paid as "cash to us") and it would make us better off being sick by over 35 to 40% of income. We thought it was allowed because upon taking it out Cardif knew of this but obviously would have said anything to get the sale confirmed.

So much conflicting information from their customer services. I have all the emails and so does FOS. They just cannot see that Cardif have done anything wrong or are being unfair.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

They have pushed back again on my Hamilton case as well after 2 years!:eek: and I have even tried to tell them from the beginning it was HFC all along we had involvement with before the loan went ahead, its only now they agreed about going this way, so the adjudicator said he will move this on to the ombudsman and not to make another complaint, he will check to see the involvement of HFC.

Have this been posted on here before, can't remember?
http://www.financial-ombudsman-problems.co.uk/index.htm

I cannot believe that one. They have !!!!ed you about for 2 years and its soon 3 years since you knew of the problem and the courts (if you wanted to use them) could use that against you.

Who is working with who? They are making damn sure you have no other recourse then.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Before cancelling the MPPI we asked them about being over insured. They emailed to say someone is over insured if they insure for over "60%" of income. (we had 75% gross income already insured after 6 months full pay and it was through a "group works policy".)

I asked IFA's on here and each one said they had not heard of any insurer that would allow you to claim on multiple policies over 75% of income (regardless of what the policies covered).

We complained and asked for our premiums back as we were over insured. They agreed we were over insured and then a "manager" at Cardif stated we were over insured if we had PHI also (even BEFORE seeing the terms and conditions of our policy with work as they just KNEW that it was RULE for insurers and we had given them the details we had here that we were insured for 75% gross income upon accident, sickness or disability).

We then cancelled the insurance upon receiving the email about being over insured (before we complained) as we listened to them and THEIR email.

Now they are saying we could have had full use of both policies at the same time (even though both are paid as "cash to us") and it would make us better off being sick by over 35 to 40% of income. We thought it was allowed because upon taking it out Cardif knew of this but obviously would have said anything to get the sale confirmed.

So much conflicting information from their customer services. I have all the emails and so does FOS. They just cannot see that Cardif have done anything wrong or are being unfair.

Blimey!!
So did this go as far as the ombudsman?

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I cannot believe that one. They have !!!!ed you about for 2 years and its soon 3 years since you knew of the problem and the courts (if you wanted to use them) could use that against you.

Who is working with who? They are making damn sure you have no other recourse then.

Thats right! A long time.
There is another poster on here in exactly the same position as myself, same lender, insurer, the only difference is the broker, however she is still waiting for a decison.
Yet they are going the Hamilton direction on her's at the moment as well, but she seems to think its HFC.

My decision arrived a few days ago, and it was about Feb maybe earlier I found more details from the HFC bank, where I tried telling them it was HFC they said no we must go through Hamilton.
And now asking me to get some clarification from HFC.
He basically have given me until the 30 of this month to forward any further info I have.

I remember you even told me HFC.
Both my and hubby spoken to these before the loan was paid out, and they also said if we require additional funds is to contact them, and now I have found 2 copies of the HFC Customer speaks forms.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Blimey!!
So did this go as far as the ombudsman?

It went to one adjudicator who found in Cardif's favour. I then had the opportunity to escalate to the Ombudsman but a few weeks ago I received another email from another adjudicator to say she could not see anything wrong and agreed with the first one.

I then told her to forget the complaint as it would seem they all stick together (i was so !!!!ed off at them TBH so was being shirty and have probs too ATM) but she said that the Ombudsman "could" see things differently. I know she was only doing her job by saying that so I said I would let it go to the Ombudsman as I feel so strongly about this.

I have today found the two letters whereby within a few days (in fact on the day of submitting the details) of receiving the policy we rang them about a few matters and these two letters are acknowledging phone calls and medical exclusions etc and work etc so I have forwarded them to her to "confirm" we DID discuss the policy in depth.

I have yet to see what she says. Whether she will just send the information onto the Ombudsman or adjudicate herself.... don't know how this works BUT she did email back to say that Cardif will have nothing else to add as they have no details as this was 2004 (which they have TWICE stated). It did not seem enough that these letters state "further to your recent telephone call" and after discussing medical things and thankyou for the telephone call regarding your husbands work being employed and not on a contract". They still want confirmation from Pinnacle that we did actually discuss the policy. In fact knowing us we rang everyday.... we were so careful Di about our insurance. We never wanted to rely on the state.

God I am cracking up again.

marshallka

The longer FOS have hold of complaints, the less chance a consumer has of taking them to court if they wanted to. I cannot understand them TBH. And some say they are "consumer biased". Not where I am coming from. I can only vouch for myself here but certainly not consumer friendly and fair to me.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

It went to one adjudicator who found in Cardif's favour. I then had the opportunity to escalate to the Ombudsman but a few weeks ago I received another email from another adjudicator to say she could not see anything wrong and agreed with the first one.

I then told her to forget the complaint as it would seem they all stick together (i was so !!!!ed off at them TBH so was being shirty and have probs too ATM) but she said that the Ombudsman "could" see things differently. I know she was only doing her job by saying that so I said I would let it go to the Ombudsman as I feel so strongly about this.

I have today found the two letters whereby within a few days (in fact on the day of submitting the details) of receiving the policy we rang them about a few matters and these two letters are acknowledging phone calls and medical exclusions etc and work etc so I have forwarded them to her to "confirm" we DID discuss the policy in depth.

I have yet to see what she says. Whether she will just send the information onto the Ombudsman or adjudicate herself.... don't know how this works BUT she did email back to say that Cardif will have nothing else to add as they have no details as this was 2004 (which they have TWICE stated). It did not seem enough that these letters state "further to your recent telephone call" and after discussing medical things and thankyou for the telephone call regarding your husbands work being employed and not on a contract". They still want confirmation from Pinnacle that we did actually discuss the policy. In fact knowing us we rang everyday.... we were so careful Di about our insurance. We never wanted to rely on the state.

God I am cracking up again.

I'm not surprised you feel this way, to say its upheld then to say no, I would be cracking up too.

Maybe then...hopefully your adjudicator will relook into this before deciding on moving on to the ombudsman, I do hope so anyway.

If this fails, do you know if the FOS assessor can get involved, or are they just there to check if your complaint have been dealt with fairly?

Just found this now.
http://www.financial-ombudsman-problems.co.uk/independent%20assessor.htm

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/news/updates/new-independent-assessor-appointed-may2010.html

Contact of the assessor
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/IA_terms_reference.htm

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

I'm not surprised you feel this way, to say its upheld then to say no, I would be cracking up too.

Maybe then...hopefully your adjudicator will relook into this before deciding on moving on to the ombudsman, I do hope so anyway.

If this fails, do you know if the FOS assessor can get involved, or are they just there to check if your complaint have been dealt with fairly?

Just found this now.
http://www.financial-ombudsman-problems.co.uk/independent%20assessor.htm

Yeah, I think they would also side with the firm and the adjudicators. My complaint has been looked at and that is all they are obliged to do. Look at it and adjudicate. They have and found in favour of the firm. Fair or not, it does not come into it.

They say the same as Cardif are saying "now" only since we have cancelled and never had to make a claim on it, that we could benefit from both policies at the same time.... they do not have to say about one being taken from the other, that is up to me to know that, even when asking them bluntly, they are allowed to say "yes you can claim on both even though you are already insured for 75% of your income". They cannot be held responsible for what they fail to tell you.....

it reminds me of Firstplus and their saying about the CASHBACK policy. They told folk that you get the cashback and to look at it as a saving scheme... they fail to say its only the premium you get back and not the interest on it... misleading and very unfair and certainly not professional.

I bet they sell life insurance and have in their terms and conditions in very small print... you can make a claim if you sign after the event.

marshallka

Does this refer to MPPI

Products Covered by the Income Protection Model Key Features Document (KFD)
2.4 If the product is primarily income protection (which may or may not include waiver of premium) then the model KFD should be used. A similar format should apply to the following contracts with appropriate amendments:
• Housepersons policies (i.e. policies for housewives, househusbands etc.);
• Expenditure related (e.g mortgage) protection plans.
2.5 The Statement does not address policies which incorporate more than one healthrelated benefit (e.g. critical illness, private medical insurance or long term care insurance in addition to income protection). Nevertheless we recommend that insurers comply with the spirit of the Income Protection KFD when they print their product literature in respect of such policies in addition to the Statements of Best Practice that apply to these products. Protection plans classified as short term under the Insurance Companies Act are not included in the above. Combinations of Income protection and unemployment insurance are covered by these provisions, but creditor insurance is not.
2.6 The Statement is based on the following concepts.
Clarity
2.7 Wherever possible to aid consumer understanding, the preferred wording of the Key Features Document will be in "Plain English" provided that this does not dilute or conflict with the meaning.
2.8 The intention behind the guidance notes is that policy terms/conditions should be as robust as possible in differentiating between what is, and is not, covered to:
2.8.1 Create a clear expectation of the scope and limitations of cover.
2.8.2 Allow valid claims to be paid promptly.
2.8.3 Minimise the number of disputed claims to avoid disappointment.
Key Features Document
2.9 The requirements of the Key Features Document included in this Statement are in addition to (and, in the event of a conflict, are overruled by) any regulatory, legal, 3rd Life Directive and product specific requirements for Key Features.
5
2.10 The Key Features format is intended to ensure that income protection is described in a way that allows consumers to compare the income protection cover of different providers.
Providers should give Key Features Documents to enquirers and potential customers (via intermediaries as appropriate) at the earliest opportunity to allow them to make meaningful product comparisons before purchase. They may also wish to issue their version of the model leaflet to consumers. The KFD should be issued in addition to the company’s marketing and quotation materials.

Does this mean a KFD should have included about how other insurance affected you claiming or could affect your claiming because we never had any Key feature. In fact the Insurance policy terms and conditions was 2001 and we took this out in 2004.

Please could someone make sure that what I am reading here is nothing to do with MPPI policies using the same sort of thing
http://www.abi.org.uk/Information/Co..._Notes/531.pdf

I got told by the adjudicator that the above statement ONLY applied to Income Protection policies BUT it seems they mention similar for MPPI policies. If it is it is stated they mention about how other policies affect claiming and vice versa. They NOW do mention this but should they have done in 2004?