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

marshallka

Just looked at Ant insurance policy terms and conditions.... so much more clear, fair and not misleading

4.2. The maximum Monthly Benefit payable under the policy is 125% of Your Mortgage
Payment, 75% of Your Net Monthly Income or £1,500, whichever is the lesser.
4.3. In addition, the maximum Monthly Benefit allowed under this and any similar insurance,
including but not limited to any Incapacity, Return to Work or Unemployment cover is
75% of Your Net Monthly Income. All benefits over 75% of Your Net Monthly Income will
be deducted in the event of a claim.

This is not what Cardif state..... they have stated to the Adjudicator (not to me personally) that they would pay out in addition to receiving full sick pay!!! And on top of PHI of 75% Gross income.

magpiecottage

I do not know which insurer your employer uses but Unum, one of, if not the largest group risk insurers says "Examples of other sources of income which may affect the benefit payable include pensions and payments from other long term insurance policies if these are payable for more than two years." You can find this here. Most MPPI will pay benefits for no longer than that so it would seem not to affect the benefit.

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

I do not know which insurer your employer uses but Unum, one of, if not the largest group risk insurers says "Examples of other sources of income which may affect the benefit payable include pensions and payments from other long term insurance policies if these are payable for more than two years." You can find this here. Most MPPI will pay benefits for no longer than that so it would seem not to affect the benefit.

It says

Does other income the claimant receives affect the benefit from this insurance?
[FONT=Dax,Dax][FONT=Dax,Dax]Any other income which is paid as a result of a long-term illness or injury is likely to affect the amount of income benefit payable. This is to ensure that claimants do not receive a greater net income than they receive when working.[/FONT]
[FONT=Dax,Dax]The normal maximum income they can receive from all sources is 80 per cent of pre-incapacity gross earnings. [/FONT]
[FONT=Dax,Dax]Examples of other sources of income which may affect the benefit payable include, pensions and payments from other long term insurance policies if these are payable for more than two years. If income from these sources takes the total income over the maximum permitted, then it will generally be offset against the income benefit payable under our policy. Untaxed income such as the benefits from Individual Income Protection policies will be increased by 50 per cent to make it comparable to taxable income. [/FONT]

[FONT=Dax,Dax]For us to claim on both would have made us better off by 30%. The MPPI is INCOME.............its paid over to the consumer. If we were receiving full pay from work then again, by claiming on the insurance would put you ABOVE your maximum monthly allowance according to rules on insurance. Even dunstonh said in the beginning (and he is an IFA) that there is a maximum combined policy percentage against earning, the abi say it too.[/FONT]

It seems that Cardif have a one off policy for us.
[/FONT]

magpiecottage

I am still not clear about what happened when.

When did you first take out the policy?

Who sold it to you?

When did Pinnacle first tell you that you could claim on both policies at the same time?

When did you cancel the policy?

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

I am still not clear about what happened when.

When did you first take out the policy?

Who sold it to you?

When did Pinnacle first tell you that you could claim on both policies at the same time?

When did you cancel the policy?

Taken out in 2004.

It was purchased (granted) over the internet BUT we had some queries which were "pre existing conditions" and having my husband as a contract worker (which he was not) and to mention about 75% gross income insurance and full pay until the 26 weeks. We rang a few times about things. It was said after receiving letters from them. If you need to discuss this further......we had rang them and I know I said before taking this out to FOS (which I seem to think we did also) but we actually rang them after too a few times..... maybe everday if I know me, as you can see I need to get things straight). I realise this was a non advised sale but I would think that all questions asked need to be fair and not misleading. I felt misled.

The complaint was not about being missold, it was about over insurance. If it is our fault then fair enough. I would like to highlight these problems thought all the same. We did not know that if you ask an insurance company a question they are allowed to answer in a round about way. It was to say we did not feel that we had enough information to make an informed decision (knowing what we know now)... Their terms and conditions make no reference to how the money is paid, how you get paid when receiving sick pay, and also how other income would affect this. Surely they should have included this as their policies are much the same as Income protection. It is income.... it paid direct and that is what their site says now.



We cancelled the policy last year AFTER asking again about this (we had read about over insurance) and them saying we were over insured. (AFTER receiving Policy summaries, terms and condtions etc) and agreeing to refund the monies to us. (without taking into account the redundancy part which was fair enough and we WOULD have been happy with....at his point we had not actually complained, only asked their opinion.

They then changed their minds AFTER we had cancelled. They stated to FOS in their final response that even after receiving 75% gross income from the PHI that we could claim AND make use of both policies at the same time. Their policy is not direct to the mortgage and covers the mortgage and related expenditure too. It is then classed as "income" and this is where the problem lies. You cannot make yourself better off by claiming on insurance (as we did NOT know) but insurers have a duty (one would think) to let consumers know when asked specifically and not to mislead when asked by stating "yes you can claim on both"..... but forgetting to state that if insured for maximum 75% there could be problems. They knew how their policy paid out and it was over to the consumer and not direct. They must have known rules for insurance and maximums you can insure for. They are still stating that even when insured for 75% gross income you can make full use a policy at the same time. (god knows how!!!).

Ant insurance have the right idea. I am now thinking that the Adjudicator thought that as Mr V from Cardif keeps saying that MPPI is different (which it can be if paid direct to the Mortgage and ours was not as it included other related expenses) then he could be correct. (although a few insurers I have spoken to have said there still would be problems regardless!).

Mr V from Cardif seems to think that as this is MPPI its quite different to rules. From what I have read it is not. I want to KNOW for sure if what he is saying is true and that we could have made FULL use of both policies at the same time. No-one that I ask knows for sure and insurance should not be a gamble should it?

His words are
In brief, these policies cover each member for a percentage of their
earnings in the event that they become unable to work by reason of
illness or injury. The deferred period under each scheme is 26 weeks.
A claim may be paid to the member’s date of retirement. These policies
are income protectors for long term illnesses/sickness.

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. In my
opinion, you could have had the benefit of both policies at the same
time.




http://www.creditchoices.co.uk/mortgage-protection-and-life-insurance-whats-the-difference.html
Accident Sickness and Unemployment (ASU) is very similar to mortgage protection insurance. In simple terms, ASU can be used for anything whereas MPPI denotes it is to be used for a mortgage.

**** adds: “Everything is becoming somewhat blurred. MPPI simply denotes an ASU policy which is linked to a mortgage. However ASU on its own can be used to cover something else.”
If you can’t work due to illness, injury or redundancy, ASU cover will pay you a fixed monthly sum to cover things such as your monthly bills, mortgage payments, various other loan repayments or rent that you might have.
You choose how long and for how much the policy will cover you should you suddenly find yourself out of work for whatever reason.
However these policies are only intended for the short term – an ASU policy will pay out for a absolute maximum of two years – by which time you should have got another job or recovered from illness.

All our letters and summary from when we took this out relate to this as ASU.

Should ASU have had to have the ABI Statement of Best Practice Key Features document which would have said how other income, other insurance affected the policy. I have asked the ABI actually so await their reply. If it is that it should I can see why now. It is because if a policy is actually ATTACHED to a mortgage it seems to have different legalisation (I posted a link about claiming JSA alongside and the problems people have faced when claimning on an MPPI that is paid direct to you). This needs to be clear I think and then those that actually want to help themselves (as we did) are not faced with being over insured but do not find out until its time to claim.

Dunstonh seemed to think that the clause for this is when a policy is paid direct to the lender? A grey area by the looks of things. I will no doubt have to sit on my complaint as it is my own fault according to rules at the time and not having proofs of actual phone calls (I did not record them TBH) but others might learn from this.

We had income protection (Permanent) and wanted MPPI type cover for the Mortgage (we had previously had ATTACHED mortgage insurance)..... that is all we wanted but had no idea of maximums payable regards to income. (being 75% gross income and it seems 80% net income).

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.

Is this the difference between regular MPPI and MPPI that is paid direct to the consumer (much like Income protection) or am I reading this wrong. Was our policy Expenditure related (e.g. mortgage) protection plan?

magpiecottage

marshallka wrote: »

I realise this was a non advised sale but I would think that all questions asked need to be fair and not misleading. I felt misled.

If the sale is not advised, they only had to either give an accurate answer to any question asked. They were not required to give details of how it might affect another provider's products.

If you had asked them then they could either give an accurate answer or no answer at all - possibly referring you to the other provider and/or explaining that they did not know.

The complaint was not about being missold, it was about over insurance. If it is our fault then fair enough.

If you were overinsured then it was either a missale or a mispurchase. Even under current FSA rules, misselling by overinsurance would only occur if the provider ought to have been aware of the overinsurance and did not alert you to it (and then not always).

It was to say we did not feel that we had enough information to make an informed decision (knowing what we know now)... Their terms and conditions make no reference to how the money is paid, how you get paid when receiving sick pay, and also how other income would affect this.

Surely they should have included this as their policies are much the same as Income protection. It is income.... it paid direct and that is what their site says now.[/quote]

For an advised sale, making you aware of the impact the new policy and the existing cover might have upon one another would be a requirement but if it was not advised then you would be deemed to have satisfied yourself in this regard already unless you specifically asked the question.


That said, I think that both Pinnacle and the adjudicator are wrong.

Although it is correct to say that MPPI and PHI are different policies, they both cover the peril of you being unable to work through illness or injury.

PPI is an indemnity policy - it indemnifies the policyholder against being unable to meet his obligation to pay what is due on his loan.

PHI can be an indemnity policy - because it covers any loss of income to lower than an agreed percentage of pre-incapacity earnings. Where that happens, the PPI benefit will have an effect on it.

Alternatively, PHI can function as a benefit policy - it pays out an agreed amount. This will, typically, occur if the PHI limit is less than the maximum.

What this means is that if the PHI and the PPI payouts together will exceed the maximum percentage of pre-incapacity earnings that the PHI alone would pay, the insurers between them will have to pay only up to that percentage but otherwise you get the full amount.

For that reason, I believe the reasoning you have been given is incorrect.


Nevertheless, the situation is complicated with a group PHI because the PPI is covering the individual's interest in meeting his loan repayments whilst the PHI is covering the employer's interest in maintaining the payment of an income to the employee (which may be an obligation under the contract of employment).

Because of that, I do not think there would, by default, not be a right for the PHI insurer to automatically restrict the claim to take account of the PPI - this is the position I explained last night and, although the benefit can be paid direct to the employee, it is still the employer that is insured, so I think it is still correct.

That, in turn, means the adjudicator's conclusion would have been correct, albeit for the wrong reasons.

However, you have now explained that the insurer specifically restricted benefits payable in the event of another source of income being paid to the employee if they were too ill to work.

That would seem to be permissible.


So, both you and the insurer/FOS are correct but for the complaint to be upheld, you would need to demonstrate that the insurer was at fault.

At that point, I think you may have difficulty. If the insurer knew that your cover was provided by the employer, rather than purchased by you personally, it would have been reasonably entitled to assume that the default position (i.e. that no such restriction was in place) unless it was made aware the specific restriction.

I do not see how you can demonstrate that it was made aware.

So my view is that if the insurer was aware that it was an employer sponsored PHI cover but not that it had a specific restriction, the position it adopted, based on what it had been told, was reasonable.


In summary, from what I now understand the case to be, I believe I would reject it - though not for the reasons the insurer and the adjudicator have given.

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

If the sale is not advised, they only had to either give an accurate answer to any question asked. They were not required to give details of how it might affect another provider's products.
An accurate answer, yes, but when 75% of income is already covered on balance of probability wouldn't any advisor know we would have a policy reduced by excessive amounts.

If you had asked them then they could either give an accurate answer or no answer at all - possibly referring you to the other provider and/or explaining that they did not know.
I agree


If you were overinsured then it was either a missale or a mispurchase. Even under current FSA rules, misselling by overinsurance would only occur if the provider ought to have been aware of the overinsurance and did not alert you to it (and then not always).

It was to say we did not feel that we had enough information to make an informed decision (knowing what we know now)... Their terms and conditions make no reference to how the money is paid, how you get paid when receiving sick pay, and also how other income would affect this.

Surely they should have included this as their policies are much the same as Income protection. It is income.... it paid direct and that is what their site says now.

For an advised sale, making you aware of the impact the new policy and the existing cover might have upon one another would be a requirement but if it was not advised then you would be deemed to have satisfied yourself in this regard already unless you specifically asked the question.
Time will tell from the calls as to whether its classed advised.


That said, I think that both Pinnacle and the adjudicator are wrong.

I also think that both Pinnacle and the adjudicator are wrong.For that reason I am wanting this to go to the Ombudsman.

Although it is correct to say that MPPI and PHI are different policies, they both cover the peril of you being unable to work through illness or injury.
They both do and even after Mr V saw our terms and conditions of the policies he still states both could be benefited from at the same time. We would not want to benefit from part though as we wanted it for FULL use.

PPI is an indemnity policy - it indemnifies the policyholder against being unable to meet his obligation to pay what is due on his loan.

PHI can be an indemnity policy - because it covers any loss of income to lower than an agreed percentage of pre-incapacity earnings. Where that happens, the PPI benefit will have an effect on it.

Alternatively, PHI can function as a benefit policy - it pays out an agreed amount. This will, typically, occur if the PHI limit is less than the maximum.

What this means is that if the PHI and the PPI payouts together will exceed the maximum percentage of pre-incapacity earnings that the PHI alone would pay, the insurers between them will have to pay only up to that percentage but otherwise you get the full amount.
That was my question when I asked them on taking out the policy and also when I queried it last year. Last year I got a correct answer by email I think and the manager that dealt with it was correct in that we were in fact over insured. It was only when Mr v got hold of the complaint he stated different and I find him misleading. Lets say I was wanting to buy the policy today and gave him the details (like he had had) of my PHI policy before buying. Would he still state that I would have full use of both policies at the same time. He also says that they pay (although no mention in their terms and conditions and I just have to take their word for it like when we took this out) that they DO pay alongside FULL sick pay. TBH I would not have ever claimed whilst receiving sick pay from work as we would still be getting paid so both policies would have had claims put in at the same time I would say.

For that reason, I believe the reasoning you have been given is incorrect.


Nevertheless, the situation is complicated with a group PHI because the PPI is covering the individual's interest in meeting his loan repayments whilst the PHI is covering the employer's interest in maintaining the payment of an income to the employee (which may be an obligation under the contract of employment).
You (and the adjudicator) keep mentioning this alike to PPI. Its not PPI because its not attached to a loan or anything and not paid direct to a loan or anything. Its more like a IP policy in that way and legalisation is different when paid into the consumers bank account. Even with Group PHI it is insurance for the member and not for the employer.

Because of that, I do not think there would, by default, not be a right for the PHI insurer to automatically restrict the claim to take account of the PPI - this is the position I explained last night and, although the benefit can be paid direct to the employee, it is still the employer that is insured, so I think it is still correct.
I don't think you are correct when making claims on the PHI. Its to cover a member and the member is the employee. Most of these technical guides make mention of "other income" the member is receiving.

That, in turn, means the adjudicator's conclusion would have been correct, albeit for the wrong reasons.
I will get that confirmed just to be sure but as for the technical guides that the broker from work has it states about how other income has an effect on the "members" claim and MPPI paid direct to you is in fact "other income"... this is the problem that people face when trying to claim benefits for MPPI that is paid direct to you.

However, you have now explained that the insurer specifically restricted benefits payable in the event of another source of income being paid to the employee if they were too ill to work.

That would seem to be permissible.
Apparently it is a rule which ALL insurers must know but consumer do not know. 75% gross income maximum or 80% net income maximum. Take a look at all other insurers guides, most actually DO state this.


So, both you and the insurer/FOS are correct but for the complaint to be upheld, you would need to demonstrate that the insurer was at fault.
I feel that the insurer is at fault. Mr V is still at fault now and should (if now being the day I was buying one of their policies and asked the question of "I have already got 75% of gross income covered by work PHI and it kicks in AFTER 26 weeks of receiving full pay first would it be worth buying a cover for Mortgage"".... he would obviously state "yes" it would benefit you.... most other insurers would say what they KNOW to be true, fair and not misleading. Even his employees who were asked the question KNEW it so why does he feel different.

At that point, I think you may have difficulty. If the insurer knew that your cover was provided by the employer, rather than purchased by you personally, it would have been reasonably entitled to assume that the default position (i.e. that no such restriction was in place) unless it was made aware the specific restriction.
The insurer knew we had PHI by work (no mention of "group" or who it was paid to first and all the rest. Just we already had 75% of income covered elsewhere.
I do not see how you can demonstrate that it was made aware.
So there you have it, FOS do take the firms word against mine (just hope they can trace the calls from the letters sent to FOS).... and even KNOWING they have lied already about the Key Facts and the misinformation that made us cancel (IF It was misinformation that the other advisors were giving). We now have no cover for what we assumed we were covering for if Mr V is correct. (although I have reason to believe he was not).

So my view is that if the insurer was aware that it was an employer sponsored PHI cover but not that it had a specific restriction, the position it adopted, based on what it had been told, was reasonable.
It was made aware that we had an insurance of Accident sickness and unemployment with work for 75% gross income.


In summary, from what I now understand the case to be, I believe I would reject it - though not for the reasons the insurer and the adjudicator have given.[/QUOTE]
Lets hope then that the Ombudsman/ adjudicator looks at it different. I shall be making another complaint soon as to us cancelling a policy that we could have had full use of on asking their advisors a question of whether we were over insured. If that be the case we have lost out again in my view. We have lost out 12 payments worth of insurance.

And for the record Magpie cottage, i think i have highlighted that not even an IFA knows the answers (with pure fact) on things like this and claiming on multiple policies. I think that this is something that needs addressing and needs highlighting. I see so many people post on here that they are receiving full pay from work etc etc and see the IFA's, ex FOS making claims that MPPI/PPI pays out alongside regardless. SOme maybe do but others don't and some don't even mention it in their terms. IF you do ask they will say they do.... cause they will until you come to claim. Then you have problems.

marshallka

Right, sorry for this thread but its the way I am.... I have just been through cardif pinnacles terms and conditions they sent to us with a fine tooth comb because I noted that all the letters received from them about my complaint mentioned carers cover (which my terms and conditions do not say) and noticed it says

7 (ii) We will give you 30 days written notice of any changes to the terms of this Policy.

We have never heard anything from them whatsoever until they "upped" the premiums, made refunds to the premiums and with regards to my complaint BUT it says on their website

6. Variations

We reserve the right at any time without notice to revise the content of our website (including the services offered by us) and these Terms and Conditions. Any changes to these Terms and Conditions will be posted on our website and by continuing to use our website following any such change you will signify that you agree to be bound by the revised Terms and Conditions.


Does this mean the terms and conditions of policies? We have never had any variations in our policy sent to us as they stated in their "original" terms and conditions?

It also states in their "Original terms and conditions"

14 (v) The monthly benefit cannot be paid to anyone else or in any other way than "DESCRIBED" in this policy

although it does not describe in any way whatsoever HOW the the money is paid.

The FSA TCF says

Post-sale disclosure plays an
important role in helping to ensure that consumers are kept aware of product
performance, their opportunities to act at certain points in the product lifecycle
and changes in the terms and conditions.

marshallka

Well just had an email from the ABI with regards to asking about "overlaps" in insurance. The reply I got was

Thank you for your recent email.

It is difficult to respond to specific queries but in general MPPI policies pay out for a 12 month period maximum (there are a few 24 month policies).

An Income Protection policy will continue to pay whilst you continue to meet the policy conditions, potentially to the expiry date, which can be to retirement.

If there is an overlap in payment periods between the MPPI and IP policies then the IP policy will regard the MPPI payment as additional income and if this and the IP pay out exceed 75% of your salary then the IP pay out will be reduced accordingly. However, should you be off work for longer than a year the MPPI pay out will stop (assuming it is a 12 month contract) and the IP pay out should be increased.

Additionally the MPPI policy will also cover involuntary unemployment whereas most IP policies cover illness and accident and not unemployment.


Now Mr V said to the adjudicator this


In brief, these policies cover each member for a percentage of their
earnings in the event that they become unable to work by reason of
illness or injury. The deferred period under each scheme is 26 weeks.
A claim may be paid to the member’s date of retirement. These policies
are income protectors for long term illnesses/sickness.

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. In my
opinion, you could have had the benefit of both policies at the same
time.


The ABI are quoting the same as I was told when the orginal complaint about being over insured was going to be refunded.

magpiecottage

marshallka wrote: »

.
Time will tell from the calls as to whether its classed advised.

Your case hinges on this point. Your argument that "any adviser would know of the limit" is not necessarily true, although arguably they should.

However, if your purchase was not advised then, by definition, there was no adviser.

I also think that both Pinnacle and the adjudicator are wrong.For that reason I am wanting this to go to the Ombudsman.

My point is that the reasoning, not necessarily the conclusion is wrong.

That was my question when I asked them on taking out the policy and also when I queried it last year.

If it can be shown that you asked the question when you took the policy out and were given the wrong answer then it should be upheld. If it was answered correctly, or not answered at all (or the the insurer's representative indicated that they did not know) then it should not. However, the burden of proof is on you to show it was answered incorrectly, though.

You (and the adjudicator) keep mentioning this alike to PPI. Its not PPI because its not attached to a loan or anything and not paid direct to a loan or anything. Its more like a IP policy in that way and legalisation is different when paid into the consumers bank account. Even with Group PHI it is insurance for the member and not for the employer.

I have never said that and I doubt the adjudicator has.

The fact is that your employer has a contract of insurance to provide Permanent Health Insurance benefits and you do not. The employer may have taken it out in order to provide ill health benefits for its employees but that does not change the fact that it and the insurer are the parties to the contract.

I feel that the insurer is at fault. Mr V is still at fault now and should (if now being the day I was buying one of their policies and asked the question of "I have already got 75% of gross income covered by work PHI and it kicks in AFTER 26 weeks of receiving full pay first would it be worth buying a cover for Mortgage"".... he would obviously state "yes" it would benefit you.... most other insurers would say what they KNOW to be true, fair and not misleading. Even his employees who were asked the question KNEW it so why does he feel different.

I cannot answer for why somebody at the insurer has made a particular statement. However, whilst that statement seems to be incorrect, it was only made AFTER you had cancelled the policy and it is necessary to demonstrate fault at the time of purchase.

The insurer knew we had PHI by work (no mention of "group" or who it was paid to first and all the rest. Just we already had 75% of income covered elsewhere.

So there you have it, FOS do take the firms word against mine (just hope they can trace the calls from the letters sent to FOS)

That is a principle known as "He who asserts must prove". It goes back to Saxon times. It prevents people simply making up claims that are enforced simply because the other party cannot prove they are untrue.

FOS can look at the evidence available and decide on the basis of what is most likely but if it decides it is 50:50 it will not.

even KNOWING they have lied already about the Key Facts

Very unlikely that there was an intent to deceive, far more likely that they mistakenly put in a sentence relating to a post 2005 purchase. Therefore not a lie.

and the misinformation that made us cancel (IF It was misinformation that the other advisors were giving). We now have no cover for what we assumed we were covering for if Mr V is correct. (although I have reason to believe he was not).

So which way are you jumping? If this Mr V is correct then you have no grounds for complaint. If he is not then his colleagues did not misinform you when they gave you the information that led you to cancel.

It was made aware that we had an insurance of Accident sickness and unemployment with work for 75% gross income.

So you say but either there is evidence to demonstrate this or there isn't Mere repetition of an assertion does not change the probability of it being true.

Lets hope then that the Ombudsman/ adjudicator looks at it different.

My hope is that they apply the correct underlying legal principle and decide on the basis of the evidence.

I shall be making another complaint soon as to us cancelling a policy that we could have had full use of on asking their advisors a question of whether we were over insured. If that be the case we have lost out again in my view. We have lost out 12 payments worth of insurance.

Reminds me of a conversation with somebody at the PIA Ombudsman Bureau many years ago where they used the phrase "professional complainer"

i think i have highlighted that not even an IFA knows the answers (with pure fact) on things like this and claiming on multiple policies. I think that this is something that needs addressing and needs highlighting. I see so many people post on here that they are receiving full pay from work etc etc and see the IFA's, ex FOS making claims that MPPI/PPI pays out alongside regardless. SOme maybe do but others don't and some don't even mention it in their terms. IF you do ask they will say they do.... cause they will until you come to claim. Then you have problems.

Again, you have no evidence to support your assertions. By contrast I have shown why I have taken the position that I have.