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

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

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 have never said that and I doubt the adjudicator has.


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.



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.


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.



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.



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



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

Magpiecottage, although I appreciate you replying to my thread here I also feel that you are here just to put in your negativity in the hope that I will give up and that I do not have a complaint at all. (something you do to others on here frequently).

As regards your comment of "professional complainer"..... I feel there are far more professional complainers on here than myself. I am no "professional" but I am learning all I can as I have been "had" by the professional crooks (not talking of Pinnacle here) who legally but not morally took money from the likes of me and others on here. There is no harm in complaining about that. If you feel I have no complaint here then fair enough. I only want fairness just like everyone else.

I have lost of a lot in the past and was too busy to make complaints TBH but I would not be in the position I am now if I had known what I now know. Isn't the saying to live and learn.... if you pick yourself up that is.

magpiecottage

I could tell you that yes you have them bang to rights. It will not, though, change the fact that in spite of the fact that you seem to have evidence that people working for the insurer have made mistakes you have not persuaded me that those mistakes are the cause of any loss you may have suffered and so, based on my experience, I do not believe it will be upheld.

So I do not see that it would be helpful for me to tell you something which I do not think is true.

marshallka

I have now closed the complaint because its doing my head in TBH but wanted to add about short term and long term policies

Cardif used to advertise their MPPI as LONG TERM SOLUTION to Accident, sickness and Unemployment which is what we bought the policy as.....

http://www.cardifpinnacle.com/content/press-release.php?release=pinnacle&id=198

It says..............

Cover the cost of long-term illness


We assumed that is what we were buying much the same as an income protection policy and it was purchased in August 2004......

The ABI Statement of Best Practice says here about implementing a Key facts document on Policies

Companies are currently required to apply the 1999 Statement of Best Practice
together with the revised 2001 Key Features document. The timetable for
implementing the revised 2003 Statement of Best Practice and Key Features

Document is 1 January 2004.


These Key facts were to be implemeted by latest Jan 2004..... we did not have one and yet our insurance was in August 2004 and at the time was thought to be "income protection to cover the mortgage and related bills".........

It also says in the Best Practice document

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.

Then some say its the consumer that should know these things. Lots of things were misleading where Pinnacle's policy was concerned I would say.

In the Key Features Document it should include

The benefit we pay under the plan may affect your claim to some means tested

State Benefits. Your entitlement to State Incapacity Benefit won’t be affected.

(which is why I say that having a policy paid DIRECT to the consumer is different and is classed as INCOME when claiming benefits)

It also says

The benefit we pay under this plan may affect your claim to benefits under other

income protection policies.

Had these been in any policy document or key features document (which they were adament we had or we would not have been able to tproceed with the buying of the policy they said in their responses ALTHOUGH IN A RESPONSE to FOS MR V has stated there in fact was no Key Features document as they did NOT have them then!!!!

It should actually ASK when completing online and it never did. I know that this was most probably a non advised sale and granted non advised means non advised but it should ASK about other insurance or raise awareness when completeing online. I would not argue to some extent about advised TBH BUT I do feel misled and knew that I could never prove a phone call before taking out the policy. I was glad when I found the letters though to say I HAD talked about this policy as I know I had mentioned this 75% gross income already being insured. Proving it is another thing but they should have asked about it in Key facts which were never provided. I wish insurers would think about these things. They should ASK.

Cardif called their policy ASU, they pay it direct to the consumer (although IT IS mortgage related but not just mortgage, its other related expenses..... they also called it a LONG term policy.


Just read this too from their ADVERT

Help[upHelpupay Helpupay has been designed to offer excellent benefits at a very competitive price; in fact, premiums are tailored to each customer. For example, a 34 year old can protect themselves against accident, sickness and unemployment for £2.53 per month for each £100 covered. This means that a monthly mortgage repayment of £500 can be protected for £12.65 a month. A 24 year old would receive cover for just £1.90 per £100 covered.



Our cover was much more in comparrison so that is making me think we most probably DID buy Income protection as I always thought it to be. Ours was MORE than double this comparrison here....the age is relatively the same though but we paid more than double this quote here and it was around the same time the advert was made??????????????? I KNOW It was income protection insurance which does cost more.



In fact just done comparisons now on their site for reference and BOTH Income Protection and MPPI policies work out cheaper than what we have been paying for over 7 years..... How can that be? How can we have paid over double what the advert quotes???? And to take it out now would be cheaper than 7 years ago....