Mis-sold Life Insurance Help

dunstonh

there's definitely nothing in the paperwork to show that I wanted to take out life assurance.

The needs analysis will be on their paperwork. Not yours. All you may have got from them is a 1-2 page summary of what the policy details are and the reason it was taken out. If you don't have it, you would expect them to have a copy.

Does anyone have a tempplate of a letter for this kind of claim or give me some advice as to the content?

No. As its not an issue that a template is designed for.

Templates also have lower success rates than personalised letters. You just need to state that you were told you had to have it and that you were single and had no financial dependents and had no financial need for the policy. Two or three sentences tops. Thats all. You dont need to write war and peace.

transformer34

dunstonh wrote: »

The needs analysis will be on their paperwork. Not yours. All you may have got from them is a 1-2 page summary of what the policy details are and the reason it was taken out. If you don't have it, you would expect them to have a copy.


.

Dunston, does this apply even though I also have in writing several sources indicating that I didn't need the insurance?

Also the type of life assurance is a Decreasing Mortgage Cover Plan. Not sure if that's different or means anything.

Annisele

Dunstonh's comments apply even if you have something saying that you don't need life assurance (hopefully he won't mind my butting in).

Whether or not you needed life assurance is one thing. Apparently you didn't, as you were single with no dependants, you weren't buying jointly, and life cover wasn't a condition of your mortgage.

Whether or not you wanted life assurance is another thing entirely. Sometimes brokers write "I told Mr X that he didn't need life cover, but he insisted that he wanted it anyway for Y reason, so I arranged it for him", then keep those statements on their own files without giving clients a copy. I've even seen statements like that written in the client's own handwriting and then signed by the client, which rather scuppers any attempt by the client to say that he didn't know about it. If there's something like that on your file and the Y reason isn't completely bizarre, you'll likely lose.

I'm not suggesting that anything like that happened to you, I'm just trying to illustrate that being single with no dependants is not a cast iron guarantee you'll win your case.

transformer34

Annisele wrote: »

Dunstonh's comments apply even if you have something saying that you don't need life assurance (hopefully he won't mind my butting in).

Whether or not you needed life assurance is one thing. Apparently you didn't, as you were single with no dependants, you weren't buying jointly, and life cover wasn't a condition of your mortgage.

Whether or not you wanted life assurance is another thing entirely. Sometimes brokers write "I told Mr X that he didn't need life cover, but he insisted that he wanted it anyway for Y reason, so I arranged it for him", then keep those statements on their own files without giving clients a copy. I've even seen statements like that written in the client's own handwriting and then signed by the client, which rather scuppers any attempt by the client to say that he didn't know about it. If there's something like that on your file and the Y reason isn't completely bizarre, you'll likely lose.

I'm not suggesting that anything like that happened to you, I'm just trying to illustrate that being single with no dependants is not a cast iron guarantee you'll win your case.

Yes, I see what you mean now. I sent off the letter today so fingers crossed. Thanks for the advice.

transformer34

Well, Zurich were quick off the mark to reply - and pass the buck to a company called Openwork. Anyone heard of them? Apparently its for them to deal with now.

BLT_2

transformer34 wrote: »

Hi guys, new to the forum, sorry if I've posted this in the wrong place. Really need some advice.

Long story short, I've recently discovered I've been missold a life insurance policy for £150,000, to which I've been making monthly £30 payments for the last 3 1/2 years.

When I took out my mortgage at that time, the broker insisted I needed it as a condition of my mortgage. I've checked through all the paperwork and this is incorrect.Nowhere does it stipulate that I need life insurance cover. The broker was a friend of a friend. Naively I took him at his word, but he must've seen me coming. I would like to claim these premiums back but have been given conflicting advice on how to do this. Please can someone advise how I do it and what is the likelihood of success.

Thanks ever so much.

Sounds to me like another case of someone jumping on a bandwagon. To state that you have been been paying 30 pounds a month for the last 3 and a half years and have just only just realised you were missold the policy beggars belief.

I bought a motorcycle on a recommendation 3 years ago but haven't needed to use it, do you think I can get my money back. The principle is the same, you have had the protection for the last 3 years at the companies risk, now you want to rescind your part of the bargain.

Too much of this going on at the moment, if you sign an agreement you pay. One suspects that if someone reneged on an agreement to purchase your house, thereby costing you money, you would be the first one up in arms to scream about contractual obligations.

transformer34

BLT wrote: »

Sounds to me like another case of someone jumping on a bandwagon. To state that you have been been paying 30 pounds a month for the last 3 and a half years and have just only just realised you were missold the policy beggars belief.

I bought a motorcycle on a recommendation 3 years ago but haven't needed to use it, do you think I can get my money back. The principle is the same, you have had the protection for the last 3 years at the companies risk, now you want to rescind your part of the bargain.

Too much of this going on at the moment, if you sign an agreement you pay. One suspects that if someone reneged on an agreement to purchase your house, thereby costing you money, you would be the first one up in arms to scream about contractual obligations.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

dunstonh

transformer34 wrote: »

Well, Zurich were quick off the mark to reply - and pass the buck to a company called Openwork. Anyone heard of them? Apparently its for them to deal with now.

That means that Openwork have the liability and not Zurich. Nothing to be concerned with. It means one of their reps sold it.

cejsmith

dunstonh wrote: »

That means that Openwork have the liability and not Zurich. Nothing to be concerned with. It means one of their reps sold it.

I think you may find the openworks is infact linked to Zurich , alot of the old Dunbar guys went there.

nellie999

BLT completely misses the point. The sale of motor cycles is not regulated, the sale of financial products is. If he has been mis-sold the product, he is perfectly entitled to compensation. The financial advisor was the expert, not him.
Go for it, the advisor was clearly out to line his own pockets, at your expense.
Good luck, I hope you win !!

Nellie