MSE News: FSA could ban risky products

datostar

dunstonh wrote: »

Nope.

Consumer protection is good but you can take it too far. Barclays have just announced they are closing their full advice arm and making everyone redundant. You will no longer be able to receive advice from Barclays. They have said it will no longer be viable to provide advice and remain profitable. The liability is too high. Expect others to follow suit.

Apparently not removing any products but moving to an internet sales platform instead. Caveat Emptor to apply presumably?

dunstonh

datostar wrote: »

Apparently not removing any products but moving to an internet sales platform instead. Caveat Emptor to apply presumably?

Absolutely. If you DIY you dont get the consumer protection. And if we use HL as an example, you can get away with marketing that people think is advice.

You can imagine the bank staff not giving advice but telling people to use the "barclays platform" with a nudge and a wink on what funds to use. Probably steered by which fund houses are paying the biggest rebates/marketing payments.

Then when complaints come in they can say its a non-advice platform and no advice was given.

Paulgonnabedebtfree

dunstonh wrote: »

It would increase premiums significantly, slow down the application process and only benefit a small minority of people (at typically the non disclosure rejections are only around 5-10%. The FOS has fairly good non-disclosure rules in place nowadays as well.

Thanks for the clarification. I do value your contributions to this forum.

Do you have any thoughts about insurance companies doing such prior medical record inspections but only when requested to by the prospective customer? (I imagine that this would reduce the numbers a fair bit).

I have found it quite tricky in the past because, although I enjoy good health and have no issues since 2004, I have had a few potentially serious medical problems in the past and it's very difficult to remember it all with accuracy as it spanned a lot of years.
Filling in a proposal for is like "War and Peace" for me and I still can't be sure that everything is included.

dzug1

Paulgonnabedebtfree wrote: »

I have wondered how practical it would be for insurers, when selling products related to health or life cover, to check people's medical records at the beginning. .

Well certainly some insurers (in the past - don't know if it still applies) required a medical before underwriting high value insurance policies. I remember having one for my first mortgage policy. They paid for it.

dunstonh

Do you have any thoughts about insurance companies doing such prior medical record inspections but only when requested to by the prospective customer? (I imagine that this would reduce the numbers a fair bit).

I dont see the need to be honest. If you are of clean health then you have nothing to declare. If you think you have a medical condition that could impact then declare it. Let the insurance company decide if its important or not. As long as you declare it, then you have done your bit. If the insurer decides not to do a medical, then it is their choice.

I have found it quite tricky in the past because, although I enjoy good health and have no issues since 2004, I have had a few potentially serious medical problems in the past and it's very difficult to remember it all with accuracy as it spanned a lot of years.

You dont need to be specific or that accurate. If you cant remember dates then state you cant remember. The only bit you need to do is state the illness and make it clear you cant remember things where applicable. It is then up to the insurer to accept that or write to GP (most common outcome where health issues are disclosed) or to ask for medical checks.

The non disclosure bit gets too much coverage for so few rejections. If you ask the insurers, they will give you examples of people who have completed applications and not declared a thing wrong but 6 months earlier had a heart attack. They wont give you examples of people who declared an illness but got the years out. The FOS have published quite clear guidelines on non disclosure and since then the issues have really become quite clear. They do not expect perfect recollection of things like dates unless it was very recent. They do expect someone with say a heart attack to remember they have had one but not necessarily the dates for various checks.

The general rule of thumb is to declare what you can and state you cant recall if you cant. Let the insurer decide. Put the ball in their court and dont be afraid to say "cannot remember".