Insurance Blacklisted for cover I never asked for, never took up, never even wanted ?

onesixfive

dunstonh wrote: »

So, what were the insurer doing in that that three month period between the being referred to underwriters?


My point Exactly!

It took 3-4 months to get a two line letter!
It took me ages to realise who & what it all related to! I was about to throw it in the bin & ignore it - until I realised the implications....

I was turned down for insurance, and have ended up with a "record", from a product that I was "asked to buy into", that I didn't want, I never took up, and I never even enquired about in the first place - the said product simply came up in conversation with a salesman via the Halifax, who I was led to believe was meant to be reviewing my investments and accounts at the time!

Following advice offered I have now requested an urgent full copy of the formal reasons for the refusal of my so-called application, (which amount to more than a 2 line letter almost 4 months after the event!), and which I now understand I am entitled to under the terms of the data protection act.
Upon receipt I will decide whether or not to seek urgent legal advice and take this matter further.

The offer of £200 in full and final settlement is insufficient without assurances that this information has been completely wiped from all insurance records. I could end up spending more than this in loaded insurance premiums in the future as a result of these records, because of something that I didn't ask for, I never took up, and I never even wanted, and certainly never signed for.

Thanks for your advices.

shelly42

sng165 wrote: »

I could end up spending more than this in loaded insurance premiums in the future as a result of these records, because of something that I didn't ask for, I never took up, and I never even wanted, and certainly never signed for.

You will not end up paying more for insurance premiums in the future unless there is a valid reason.

Underwriters don't add loadings just because other companies have, all they will want to know is why a rating was applied previously and then use their own underwriting criteria to see if they should do the same.

dunstonh

My point Exactly!

It took 3-4 months to get a two line letter!

Which does make me wonder if they did go to GP as that is what normally happens and why you have to wait.

The offer of £200 in full and final settlement is insufficient without assurances that this information has been completely wiped from all insurance records. I could end up spending more than this in loaded insurance premiums in the future as a result of these records, because of something that I didn't ask for, I never took up, and I never even wanted, and certainly never signed for.

It wont cost you more as its only used as an indicator to the new provider to make sure they are not missing something they should be aware of on their own underwriting case. It wont make any difference to you.

onesixfive

If I ever had to answer "yes", ie: that I'd been refused insurance - I'd be classed a higher risk, and my premiums would be loaded accordingly. (trust me - I work in insurance!)

starrystarry

Shelly42 and dunstonh are right SNG, the fact that you've been refused insurance will not, in itself, increase your premiums or make you a higher risk. A "yes" answer to that question on an application is an indicator only. A marker for the underwriter, in case there are no health, family history, height/weight issues etc identified from the application form. You would not be classed as a higher risk just because you answered yes to this question. It would be whatever led to that previous adverse decision that would make you a higher risk. And if the reason for the previous adverse decision is no longer relevant from an underwriting point of view (e.g. your height/weight were now within standard parameters) then you would be accepted on standard terms and conditions. (trust me - I'm a life assurance underwriter)

shelly42

sng165 wrote: »

If I ever had to answer "yes", ie: that I'd been refused insurance - I'd be classed a higher risk, and my premiums would be loaded accordingly. (trust me - I work in insurance!)

This isn't car insurance.

I'm a life underwriter as well and answering yes to that question would not cause a loading to be added on that basis alone. The only impact it may have would have is that it may delay a decision being made on your application as the underwriter would want to know the reason you were previously declined if it wasn't immediately obvious.

dunstonh

sng165 wrote: »

If I ever had to answer "yes", ie: that I'd been refused insurance - I'd be classed a higher risk, and my premiums would be loaded accordingly. (trust me - I work in insurance!)

Trust us. We work with life companies rather than general insurance companies.

I can only repeat that the question is a safety question for the insurers. It is to help catch something that may not have been declared or perhaps not declared with full detail. It will not have an impact on price or whether you will be accepted or not.

magpiecottage

DunstonH is correct - life cover is underwritten solely on the person and specific information obtained.

However, if your allegations are true then the bank seems to have ridden roughshod over the Data Protection Principles and so FOS would be the next step.

onesixfive

Do you think that by submitting the proposal without my signature (I now have a copy of the interview form), that the Halifax were in breach of Data Protection principles, and that I am now within my rights to request that all resultant data is removed from their records, please?

starrystarry

sng165 wrote: »

Do you think that by submitting the proposal without my signature (I now have a copy of the interview form), that the Halifax were in breach of Data Protection principles, and that I am now within my rights to request that all resultant data is removed from their records, please?

I don't know, but I don't think it's worth the hassle of trying to get it removed to be honest. You've had an offer of compensation which seems reasonable, I'd take it an move on if I were you. The existence of those records may be an annoyance but there's nothing to gain by getting them removed (even if it's possible).