Mis-sold Scottish Widows Level Term Assurance

PoTsyGirl74

kingstreet wrote: »

Having children and taking out life cover for family protection would be sufficient insurable interest. How that might be impacted by them being children to only one of you is a good question.

However, the adviser would have to justify in the suitability letter that the cover was for family protection and that the term and sum assured was in some way related to the need for that cover.

Did they do that?

Looking at this, you should consider making a complaint to Lloyds that the cover was not appropriate to your circumstances. Put it in writing and give them the opportunity to resolve it. They have eight weeks to do so. If they don't resolve it to your satisfaction, you have the right to escalate it to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

Thank you kingstreet, there was no mention of family protection in the summary, and no mention of the children. Everything outlined pertained to me and my partner only. I will definitely write to them, and appreciate the advice about the FOS.

PoTsyGirl74

ACG wrote: »

If thats the case i would say you could possibly argue that the loan was miss sold.

Why would they effectively transfer someone elses debt solely into your name?

Hi ACG,

I know you said you were gonna sit on the fence regarding this, but your comment above has been playing on my mind these last few days, and I was wondering if you really do think I may have been miss sold the loan?

I've been thinking along the same lines as you on this. Would it be ethically right or deemed responsible lending to transfer another person's debt whom I had no financial link, either through marriage or sharing a bank account with into my sole name? Because that is exactly what happened!

Also, I was only working part-time and my partner full-time, yet the Lloyds FA was happy to put the commitment all on me to make the repayments. Is that deemed responsible lending?

Any comments would be appreciated.

di3004

Just wondered if you got anywhere with this in the end?

kingstreet

The OP's last activity on here was on 28 June, so don't hold your breath for a reply.

di3004

kingstreet wrote: »

The OP's last activity on here was on 28 June, so don't hold your breath for a reply.

Lol, I realised just after I posted "Doh" lol, cheers.:D

dunstonh

I would be nice to know and maybe the op may get an email saying there are responses to the thread which may prompt a return.

jonesMUFCforever

I don't hold my breath. For starters if a complaint is made about a Scot Widow sale in branch then it goes directly to compliance in Scot Widows not to the branch or branch advisor.

PoTsyGirl74

di3004 wrote: »

Just wondered if you got anywhere with this in the end?

Hi Di,

It's been a while since I was active on here, but was having a read of the forums last night and noticed your response:)

My complaint to Lloyds TSB about the sale of this Scottish Widows product wasn't upheld. I got a final response in September. They concluded that the adviser gave advice that was suitable to our circumstances, which I of course refute.

I now have the option of going to the ombudsman, which I'm currently deliberating.

dunstonh

They concluded that the adviser gave advice that was suitable to our circumstances

The use of the word "our" suggests couple. In which case, life assurance would be justified to have. The single with no dependants part was the only part of your complaint that had legs. The rest of it was likely to fail as there was no sign of any wrong doing. They seem to think you were a couple and not an individual. At the point of sale, you said you were single and living alone. That would show no need for life assurance. So, why do they think you were not?