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

marshallka

Just for the record even when a sale is classed as non advised the customer must, however, still receive sufficient information on the product to enable them to make an informed decision as to whether it meets their own demands and needs.


http://www.fsa.gov.uk/smallfirms/resources/factsheets/pdfs/factsheet_sales.pdf
In regards to Cardif Pinnacles terms and condition there is no mention of "other income" or other insurance whatsoever. In fact their terms and conditions do not mention as I can see how the payments are made etc. They "were" not sufficient.

Just gathering information for anyone else that may be in the same position.

marshallka

Just spoken to FOS about the complaint and they have apparently sent it back to us so that we can fill out the FOS questionnaire.... which we did fill in but did not think it was applicable to our complaint. Oh well, another month wasted. Also they said they acknowledged the complaint on the 22nd June and we never got that letter so all my paperwork could also be lost too!!! I am annoyed that I now have to pay for recorded delivery to send all the documents back to them which we paid for on the 11th June.

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

Just spoken to FOS about the complaint and they have apparently sent it back to us so that we can fill out the FOS questionnaire.... which we did fill in but did not think it was applicable to our complaint. Oh well, another month wasted. Also they said they acknowledged the complaint on the 22nd June and we never got that letter so all my paperwork could also be lost too!!! I am annoyed that I now have to pay for recorded delivery to send all the documents back to them which we paid for on the 11th June.

I know it is a pain in the bottom area having to fill that in. I wonder if once the complaint is logged that the questionnaire will not delay it. Well just looking on the bright side.:o

marshallka

Just had a call from the adjudicator on the Cardif case (cannot believe that time limit here!!!) with loads of questions. They are looking into it at least so fingers crossed. We were over insured and there is no doubt about that one but whether we can win is another matter. It should be written into the terms and conditions of policies that if you have other insurance it could affect others.

Just for the record even when a sale is classed as non advised the customer must, however, still receive sufficient information on the product to enable them to make an informed decision as to whether it meets their own demands and needs.

They knew we had some insurance already Income protection and this other one although called ASU (MPPI) is different and I was informed that claiming on the two would mean one reduces the other.

I took it out online (but did speak to them prior) and they told us that that we would have read "key facts" before taking this out. I have not got any copy of the key facts and only their original terms and conditions which makes no reference at all to other insurance. In fact they are still adament that we could have claimed on both (which they are not lying about and that is what we were told originally) but if they had mentioned the fact that one policy reduces the other then I know we would have taken this out.

Don't feel too confident on this one though with being non advised as the sale would have been. We did speak on the phone though but the actual clicking of it was us. I think this is a long shot TBH but just depends on what is fair and reasonable in the FOS eyes. We were not given enough information in my eyes to make an informed choice.

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

Just had a call from the adjudicator on the Cardif case (cannot believe that time limit here!!!) with loads of questions. They are looking into it at least so fingers crossed. We were over insured and there is no doubt about that one but whether we can win is another matter. It should be written into the terms and conditions of policies that if you have other insurance it could affect others.

Just for the record even when a sale is classed as non advised the customer must, however, still receive sufficient information on the product to enable them to make an informed decision as to whether it meets their own demands and needs.

They knew we had some insurance already Income protection and this other one although called ASU (MPPI) is different and I was informed that claiming on the two would mean one reduces the other.

I took it out online (but did speak to them prior) and they told us that that we would have read "key facts" before taking this out. I have not got any copy of the key facts and only their original terms and conditions which makes no reference at all to other insurance. In fact they are still adament that we could have claimed on both (which they are not lying about and that is what we were told originally) but if they had mentioned the fact that one policy reduces the other then I know we would have taken this out.

Don't feel too confident on this one though with being non advised as the sale would have been. We did speak on the phone though but the actual clicking of it was us. I think this is a long shot TBH but just depends on what is fair and reasonable in the FOS eyes. We were not given enough information in my eyes to make an informed choice.

I hope this turns out well for you Marshallka.

di3004

Everything crossed for you Marshallka XX;)

Turboman

And from me xxx

marshallka

Well after all these weeks with FOS we have been told yesterday and today also that we have not had the complaint upheld. The main element she is talking of is that it looks like Cardif Pinnacle have said that they would most likely (on probability that is!!) paid out alongside FULL pay received from his work. (Complete and utter b**locks in my eyes according to theads on here about Pinnacle NOT paying out alongside ANYTHING).



The lady doing my complaint has in fact based it on "probability as Cardif have not got any records from when we took this out so they have sent her items of what we "would" have read at the time. They cannot find them..... (2004 and ceased in 2010!!)

Basically she has said that although we had mentioned PHI to Cardif being 75% income they were CORRECT to say that we could claim on both policies and they did not lie at all. We could but one would reduce the other and they had no reason to actually say that to us even if they knew.

As regards company sick pay in FULL she said that although there is nothing in their terms and conditions about paying out alongside company sick pay, Cardif would have done so we could have had our full wages and (as they do not pay it towards the Mortgage and Bills - they pay it direct to the consumer) and it would have been fine to make ourselves better off by being ill.

This was yesterday that I received this email so I emailed back and told her I wanted to see the proof that she had had that Cardif had said that they would definately PAY OUT alongside the company pay from work. (we now know that to receive more than 75% of your income is over insuring yourself and not allowed!!). I told her I had asked this question numerous times during the course of the complaint and not once was the question answered at all and was always shyed away from....she got back today with the following....

She said she had looked at the terms of the Policy (to which she keeps referring to it as PPI and also she has got the deferred period wrong each and every time, just goes to show how much she really looked at it!!).....and as it does not state in their exclusions about claiming whilst receiving full pay from work she is very satisfied that Cardif would have made no objections to making a claim. I have asked her for proof as in yesterdays letter to us she made reference that she KNEW that Cardif did pay out alongside company full sick pay so I asked her to send me proof of which she will not and neither will Cardif.

She has stated that even if you had asked Pinnacle if you could buy a policy from them for MPPI and extra whilst having another policy for 75% of your income and putting claims in on both they were correct in stating you could.... they did not lie at all because ANYONE can buy a policy online. She said they had no need to state that as you are already in receipt of 75% income you cannot claim anymore and better yourself so one would reduce the other.... that was not their job and also it was not their job to mention this in their terms and conditions of how any other "income" affected the policy....you just took you chance!!!! A bit like putting your money on Paddy Power.... In fact she says that Cardif Pinnacles policy is not affected by the other insurance whatsoever....

Also the letter she had emailed us yesterday was dated 8th December, 2010... I had rang her on friday last week being 17th December 2010 and she said she had not come to any conclusion yet!! She said she had to conclude the complaint by a certain time (something I did not know with FOS!!) and I questioned how she had already concluded on the 8th December BUT had not let me know until the 20th December.... she made some story up about a deadline being the 8th and that she had started to complete the conclusion then.... (yeah...OK!!). She had already made her mind up on the 8th December but was hanging on until christmas week to tell us. NICE person ey!!!

I shall now find all Cardif Pinnacle posts Helpupay/Helpucover whereby people have made claims (a few on here) and they have not been honoured because they had sick pay or they had received money in lieu and tell them to go to FOS if they took about over 5 years ago.... they would win as according to this adjudicator there were no exclusions about other income.

amersall

marshallka wrote: »

Well after all these weeks with FOS we have been told yesterday and today also that we have not had the complaint upheld. The main element she is talking of is that it looks like Cardif Pinnacle have said that they would most likely (on probability that is!!) paid out alongside FULL pay received from his work. (Complete and utter b**locks in my eyes according to theads on here about Pinnacle NOT paying out alongside ANYTHING).



The lady doing my complaint has in fact based it on "probability as Cardif have not got any records from when we took this out so they have sent her items of what we "would" have read at the time. They cannot find them..... (2004 and ceased in 2010!!)

Basically she has said that although we had mentioned PHI to Cardif being 75% income they were CORRECT to say that we could claim on both policies and they did not lie at all. We could but one would reduce the other and they had no reason to actually say that to us even if they knew.

As regards company sick pay in FULL she said that although there is nothing in their terms and conditions about paying out alongside company sick pay, Cardif would have done so we could have had our full wages and (as they do not pay it towards the Mortgage and Bills - they pay it direct to the consumer) and it would have been fine to make ourselves better off by being ill.

This was yesterday that I received this email so I emailed back and told her I wanted to see the proof that she had had that Cardif had said that they would definately PAY OUT alongside the company pay from work. (we now know that to receive more than 75% of your income is over insuring yourself and not allowed!!). I told her I had asked this question numerous times during the course of the complaint and not once was the question answered at all and was always shyed away from....she got back today with the following....

She said she had looked at the terms of the Policy (to which she keeps referring to it as PPI and also she has got the deferred period wrong each and every time, just goes to show how much she really looked at it!!).....and as it does not state in their exclusions about claiming whilst receiving full pay from work she is very satisfied that Cardif would have made no objections to making a claim. I have asked her for proof as in yesterdays letter to us she made reference that she KNEW that Cardif did pay out alongside company full sick pay so I asked her to send me proof of which she will not and neither will Cardif.

She has stated that even if you had asked Pinnacle if you could buy a policy from them for MPPI and extra whilst having another policy for 75% of your income and putting claims in on both they were correct in stating you could.... they did not lie at all because ANYONE can buy a policy online. She said they had no need to state that as you are already in receipt of 75% income you cannot claim anymore and better yourself so one would reduce the other.... that was not their job and also it was not their job to mention this in their terms and conditions of how any other "income" affected the policy....you just took you chance!!!! A bit like putting your money on Paddy Power.... In fact she says that Cardif Pinnacles policy is not affected by the other insurance whatsoever....

Also the letter she had emailed us yesterday was dated 8th December, 2010... I had rang her on friday last week being 17th December 2010 and she said she had not come to any conclusion yet!! She said she had to conclude the complaint by a certain time (something I did not know with FOS!!) and I questioned how she had already concluded on the 8th December BUT had not let me know until the 20th December.... she made some story up about a deadline being the 8th and that she had started to complete the conclusion then.... (yeah...OK!!). She had already made her mind up on the 8th December but was hanging on until christmas week to tell us. NICE person ey!!!

I shall now find all Cardif Pinnacle posts Helpupay/Helpucover whereby people have made claims (a few on here) and they have not been honoured because they had sick pay or they had received money in lieu and tell them to go to FOS if they took about over 5 years ago.... they would win as according to this adjudicator there were no exclusions about other income.

What a load of old tosh :mad: you keep at the stupid b***h, she doesnt seem to know her ar*e from her elbow. I know you wont let this drop, and i dont blame you you go girl

Turboman

marshallka wrote: »

.

You avoiding me gal?

xxxx