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

marshallka

Di, I hope you read this...

I have been looking at past posts on here and I know that it was mentioned in this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1995207

and I am asking if the refunds due to hikes are also covering "income protection" which is what our protection WAS when we first took this out with Cardif and not MPPI..... I am adament it was "income protection" and I make mention of this in this thread and also in posts on the old reclaiming discussions. I state about cancelling it as I had found out that you cannot claim on two income protection polices and always had the PHI with work. It was after reading an article about income protection. I think they changed our policy as it was never called MPPI, it was taken out as Income Protection and they should have added the Key Features to this plan as it was Income protection.

Cardif did state when they gave their final response that we would have had the Key Features when taking this out BUT I argued we did not and I have just looked back at an email from FOS whereby he states "they did NOT issue one"..... maybe this is why they changed it to MPPI. Its driving me carzy as I mention it here on this site as Income Protection and also I have my letters that make no mention whatsoever of it being MPPI and yet they have now not upheld the complaint because they say its is not income protection and was actually MPPI. I know it covered the Mortgage payments and other bills, but it was an income protection policy as we always thought.

They apparently called it ASU (which is generally income protection as we took out) and then they changed it MPPI which I have no idea why? We took out an income protection policy as we thought. I know I always called it income protection? IF it was income protection then the "Key Features Document" above should have been applied and it should have mentioned about other policies affecting it and vice versa. It was supposed to have been implemented for all income protection policies from Jan 2004 as it says.

You also refer to yours as income protection in previous posts years ago.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Di, I hope you read this...

I have been looking at past posts on here and I know that it was mentioned in this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1995207

and I am asking if the refunds due to hikes are also covering "income protection" which is what our protection WAS when we first took this out with Cardif and not MPPI..... I am adament it was "income protection" and I make mention of this in this thread and also in posts on the old reclaiming discussions. I state about cancelling it as I had found out that you cannot claim on two income protection polices and always had the PHI with work. It was after reading an article about income protection. I think they changed our policy as it was never called MPPI, it was taken out as Income Protection and they should have added the Key Features to this plan as it was Income protection.

Cardif did state when they gave their final response that we would have had the Key Features when taking this out BUT I argued we did not and I have just looked back at an email from FOS whereby he states "they did NOT issue one"..... maybe this is why they changed it to MPPI. Its driving me carzy as I mention it here on this site as Income Protection and also I have my letters that make no mention whatsoever of it being MPPI and yet they have now not upheld the complaint because they say its is not income protection and was actually MPPI. I know it covered the Mortgage payments and other bills, but it was an income protection policy as we always thought.

They apparently called it ASU (which is generally income protection as we took out) and then they changed it MPPI which I have no idea why? We took out an income protection policy as we thought. I know I always called it income protection? IF it was income protection then the "Key Features Document" above should have been applied and it should have mentioned about other policies affecting it and vice versa. It was supposed to have been implemented for all income protection policies from Jan 2004 as it says.

You also refer to yours as income protection in previous posts years ago.

Hi Marshallka

Thanks for this.
Oh yes of course.

Yes mine is or was classed as Income protection and not that of MPPI.
I am going to have a gander at my paperwork, but quite right though.

I may even still have the original Booklet for this and sure it states that of Income Protection.

We do have AXA mortgage protection as well but found out that was only to pay out on death, but remember the choices Pinnacle were offering, that would be Loan PPI, MPPI or "Income Protection" I'm sure of this! So we went for Income Protection.

http://www.cardifpinnacle.com/content/press-release.php?release=pinnacle&id=328


http://www.mortgagesolutions.co.uk/mortgage-solutions/news/1476605/cardif-terminates-income-protection-plan

Cardif terminates income protection plan

I did not know it was terminated either.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Hi Marshallka

Thanks for this.
Oh yes of course.

Yes mine is or was classed as Income protection and not that of MPPI.
I am going to have a gander at my paperwork, but quite right though.

I may even still have the original Booklet for this and sure it states that of Income Protection.

We do have AXA mortgage protection as well, but remember the choices Pinnacle were offering, that would be Loan PPI, MPPI or "Income Protection" I'm sure of this!

Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree here, who knows... I am a legal person but I was first told by him that gave the final response that we had had the key features and we had not and I am sure our protection was an income protection (as you can have the money paid over to you) and I always referred to it as income protection. My V who was dealing with FOS did actually state to them (I have a copy) that Key Features was not available then in 2004. I am doing my nut here as to whether we should have had a key features and maybe not after reading the above document further down as it says it does not apply to short term protections (?????) as they would come under the insurance companies act 1982.

Thanks anyway.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree here, who knows... I am a legal person but I was first told by him that gave the final response that we had had the key features and we had not and I am sure our protection was an income protection (as you can have the money paid over to you) and I always referred to it as income protection. My V who was dealing with FOS did actually state to them (I have a copy) that Key Features was not available then in 2004. I am doing my nut here as to whether we should have had a key features and maybe not after reading the above document further down as it says it does not apply to short term protections (?????) as they would come under the insurance companies act 1982.

Thanks anyway.

I will have a look to see if I have one, if so I shall post it to you, I do remember receiving a booklet about the Income protection cover, will get digging over the weekend.;)

magpiecottage

marshallka wrote: »

I have just found the two letters from Pinnacle of when we took the policy out.

That is contemporaneous evidence of what Pinnacle did or did not say. If it is misleading then it IS Pinnacle that has to answer for it.

It was taken out on the 4th August, 2004 and we called on that date (being the 4th August as we have a letter from them on that date over "further to our telephone conversation today...." and then again with another advisor on the 17th August which was to amend again and it was during this call that I read out that we had a policy with work (and I have photocopied with these letters) that covered his salary in the event of illness for 75% gross income after company sick pay finishes at 6 months.

That does mean you seem to have been at the limit at that time.

I did not know it was called PHI but I said it was a sickness/accident/disability long term policy

What it does, as opposed to what it is called is the important bit.

I was told by the advisor that it would be fine to claim on both policies at the same time (even when knowing that our other policy was for 75% income)

It is true that you could claim on both at the same time. However, such a statement is, nevertheless misleading because, between them, they would restrict the total amount claimed.

It would therefore be a breach of the GISC Code whose subscribers promise to "make sure all the information we give you is clear, fair and not misleading"

I went and said to FOS it was actually before we took this out BUT it was just after submitting the details and within the cancellation period. TWO phone calls were made. Would this then be "advised" as we discussed the sale in detail going through all medical conditions and work etc

Possibly but the complaint is that you made a decision to proceed with the policy reliance on the statement by the insurer's representative which you now now breached the Code because it was misleading and, if they had not misled you, you would have made a different decision.

Pinnacle should now be able to trace the phone calls and dates of the phone calls etc surely. They are documented but they say they have no records of us taking the insurance out. They have used with FOS "what they would likely to have done"

They will not necessarily have retained it after all this time but the evidence you have ought to weigh heavily in your favour.

As I have said elsewhere, this sort of thing is never hard and fast - there is always an element of doubt and if you it is bang on 50:50 I would not find that the case has been proven but your argument does now sound considerably more persuasive.

I have not seen your evidence of course but, assuming it is true, it would probably sway me toward upholding your complaint.

Unfortunately for you, it will not be looked at by me but I think it is worth pushing to an Ombudsman if necessary.

marshallka

In Mr V's final response he states

Additionally, you would not have been able to proceed with the purchase
of cover without confirming that you had read and understood both the
key facts document and policy terms.


You have referred to page 23 of the ABI’s Best Practice paper as amended
on 14 January 2005. However, this is specific to
IPI and so not
relevant to your MPPI.


Then goes on to state about our Works income protection

However, these schemes are not mortgage payment protection insurance
which are designed to protect secured loan repayments and not lost income which may be applied to all categories of expenses. In view of
this, I do not concur that you had duplicate protection, were
over-insured or are eligible for a refund of all or any premiums

Then to FOS he states

You will note that in 2004
there was a Summary of Cover and not Key facts??????

The retrieved site from 2004 was from before we had a key facts doc - but
the summary page

marshallka

I think from when we clicked the submit on the screen I probably rang them everyday until the cancellation period. I doubt anything will make a difference though to this complaint. I have probably done too much damage in emails. Its just really annoyed me how PInnacle can chop and change their views on claiming etc.....and yet if a consumer does that then they are "try it ons". (even calling it MPPI). Why did they have a generic name change from ASU? Its misleading? I always thought MPPI was like we had previous and it was a policy that paid the money direct to the Mortgage company?

I know that we thought we had taken out Income Protection insurance (we have always called it that) and it was not attached to anything (they called it ASU) and it is paid direct according to their website now.... (both income protection and MPPI). Just have to see.

magpiecottage

marshallka wrote: »

Why did they have a generic name change from ASU? Its misleading?

I don't think that is misleading.

ASU stands for Accident Sickness and Unemployment - it explains when it pays out.

PPI stands (as we all know) for Payment Protection Insurance - it explains why the cover is taken out.

marshallka

Wow, did not know this either

http://www.mortgagesolutions.co.uk/mortgage-solutions/news/1476605/cardif-terminates-income-protection-plan

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Wow, did not know this either

http://www.mortgagesolutions.co.uk/mortgage-solutions/news/1476605/cardif-terminates-income-protection-plan

Hi Marshallka, I posted similar above, and like yourself I didn't know, no letters were sent in regards of this.
As far as we know when we first taken the cover out in 2003 it was known as Income Protection, and I am determined to find the keyfacts for this cover.
I note online it only states keyfacts for Mortgage protection.

So I'm still looking.