were we missold mortgage life insurance

dunstonh

and perhaps having mortgage insurance is more common than me and my friends believe!

Practically everyone with a mortgage has life assurance. That is how common it is.

holly_hobby

silversnail wrote: »

Once again thank you everyone for your wise input (not sure I understood all the abbreviations you used Holly though, but got the gist of what you were saying)

DIS = Death In Service (life cover under an occupational(employer) pension scheme)
FOS = Financial Ombusman Service
MGE = Mortgage
DDM - Direct Debit Mandate
JNT = Joint
Circs = Circumstances

Sorry if they were not self explanatory and made understanding difficult - sometimes you forget when you get typing away !

All others were expanded on with the standard abrevation in brackets ... apologies again for any issues caused.

Holly

zenmaster

holly_hobby wrote: »

It also appears that you have discussed and satisifed yourselves that neither of you have a desire or need to effect provision for the surviving partner on death .... which although not everyone's way of approaching the matter, at least demonstrates that you have given it due consideration and thought - which is still to be commended.

It's not just themselves they have to satisfy, it's also the lender who may be less cavalier about the matter.

TBH, I thought it was compulsory to have some sort of arrangement in place.

My dearly beloved accidentally cancelled ours a few years back and now, since I have developed a "pre-existing condition", it would probably cost more than the mortgage, we have never reinstated it. If only I'd not gone to the doctors that day ,

I've not mentioned it to the lenders and they have not asked but I'm still not easy with it.

holly_hobby

zenmaster wrote: »

It's not just themselves they have to satisfy, it's also the lender who may be less cavalier about the matter.

TBH, I thought it was compulsory to have some sort of arrangement in place.

Unfortunately term assurance is no longer a compulsory requirement of a mortgage (although it was many yrs ago) - however buildings insurance remains a mandatory requirement throughout the mortgage term. However certainly a single person with no dependants, or wish to leave the property entire as part of their estate, would have no real requirement for a mortgage term assurance policy.

I whole heartly agree with you re provision, but it is the OPs own decision they have to stand or fall by - you can not make someone purchase life over, no matter how sensible it may be, as you've seen from the response the OP gave to my earlier post re the subject (they would rather sell the house than affect any type of life protection, which it appears they consider a wasteful use of money) .. but you can't win 'em all !

Hope this helps

Holly

haras_nosirrah

I think the op has children now as well. My husband and I have life insurance for 100k more than the mortgage and have done for 3 years. We now have a child on the way and the piece of mind it gives me that my family wouldn't be homeless should something happen is worth the 40 quid d8rect debit. There seems to be an opinion today that if something isnt claimed on it was a was a waste of money. I will be thrilled if we never claim on our life insurance as we will then have lived to 70. Might even have a party.

opinions4u

I haven't died.

It must have been mis-sold!

magpiecottage

I generally agree with Holly.

The cover was generally suitable and a term assurance policy will have been fully underwritten. That means detailed medical questions will have been asked and a separate application form completed, so for either of us there is a "credibility gap" if you say you knew nothing about it.

That in turn means, based on the evidence, the most likely explanation of the complaint is buyer remorse, not misselling, and the correct conclusion is that a rejection.

The one point that I disagree on is that it was once compulsory. That was true of banks but NOT building societies which generally did not require it for repayment mortgages.

Wh05apk

LAte to the party I know, but I feel there are two issues here:

1, Was it necessary
2, Was it mis-sold

Possibly it could be argued it wasn't necessory in the op's situation, advisable but not compulsory.

The second point, could be, years ago when I was at Abbey, it was common to "bundle" quotes up (mortgage/B&C/life/CIC/MPPI) and I am sure there would have been sales made where clients trusted their advisors and just signed where told without realising what they were signing.

In the excitement of buying their first property, clients often don't take in/be told what they are buying/being sold. I 'm sure even now us advisors often get clients asking "have I got XXXX?" on a policy they took out several years ago, doesn't mean it was mis-sold, just that the client couldn't remember some of the details.

bigadaj

It is most common to have life insurance with a. Mortgage but by no means compulsory. I have paid off my morts be now, and only had an ltv of less than 59% when took it out in the late nineties, I didn't take life insurance as these only the missues, no kids and death in service benefits would more than cover the debt. It's an individual decision, for me incepting nd saving the premium seem of more value, but again people don't seem to ask the right questions, or ctainly historically have been encouraged to take products without fully understanding them.

holly_hobby

magpiecottage wrote: »

The one point that I disagree on is that it was once compulsory. That was true of banks but NOT building societies which generally did not require it for repayment mortgages.

That may be quite true M. - I'm going off what I remember from when I was a selling in the early 90s - and I do remember that various lenders had a compulsory TA requirement for C&I mges, whether they were Banks or BS is lost in the mist of time. So thanks for clarifying and making the distinction !.

We know today there are no compulsory requirements (save Blds), and indeed the sale of this TA was not compulsory. But the adviser recommending a Jnt Term Assurance for a jnt mge (where there is was no existing and sufficient provision) is not a mis-sale, but rather demosntrates competent advice - the choice of effecting it was the OPs - which it appears they now regret.

Even if items were sold in "bundles" - the RWL should have discussed and supported the basis of the mge selected, life and investment recommendation and product selected (or rejected). No individual should ever be in a position to prove they didn't know what they had bought or what it was for, thats what the copy FF and RWL letter provided to them at POS by the adviser is for - if of course the adviser has correctly document the sale !

They would have also received an illustration, and supporting product literature at POS, with subsequently their policy docs sent directly to them - so quite how the OP "didn't realise" at the time, or ever, that she had bought this policy and what it was for, with no idea what an active ddm over a 10 yr period at £50 pm was for, a little difficult to accept and on balance I don't believe to be accurate.

Indeed, the POS docs would reveal all, and although I have mentioned the RWL provided to her at POS, the OP has not commented on its contents ... which I feel starts to paint a picture.

Holly