civil servant missold ppi????

custardy

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Any adviser should have been aware of the benefits for an employee of the civil service in the vent of illness etc before selling them a policy whether it was regulated or not at the time of the sale

Shouldn't the employee?....

roonaldo

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Any adviser should have been aware of the benefits for an employee of the civil service in the vent of illness etc before selling them a policy whether it was regulated or not at the time of the sale

No, in an advised sale the advice given would be based on the disclose of material facts the customer disclosed.

There are circumstances where the customer may not get 6 months full sick pay etc, like already exceeding it over the past 4 years, when its payable from. An adviser doesn't know the t&c's of someone's employment contract.

The customer is being given insurance advice not benefits advice.

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Any adviser should have been aware of the benefits for an employee of the civil service in the vent of illness etc before selling them a policy whether it was regulated or not at the time of the sale

Really? I wonder why the FCA says that a firm is entitled to assume that what a customer tells it is true, then.

I am not really a fan of the FCA but I think it is probably right that an adviser should not play Chris Tarrant and ask a customer if that is his final answer or invite him to phone a friend or ask the audience.

addedvaluebob

Given that the civil service is one of the largest employers in the country and their employed status would have been disclosed as part of the disclosure to get a mortgage the adviser should have taken this into account before selling the policy. Not to do so is clearly a failure in their duty of care regardless of the FCA requirements to rely on what they are told

[Deleted User]

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Given that the civil service is one of the largest employers in the country and their employed status would have been disclosed as part of the disclosure to get a mortgage the adviser should have taken this into account before selling the policy. Not to do so is clearly a failure in their duty of care regardless of the FCA requirements to rely on what they are told

So the adviser has a "duty of care" above and beyond FCA requirements? I don't think so.

saver861

Well in my own case I had considerable existing coverage as outlined by the OP, including 12 months sick pay etc etc. I still ended up with MPPI... go figure.

I don't believe the advisers should know all the benefits of individual companies, but is it not the case that there should be some clear advice to consider existing coverage. If on the other hand the customer has explained existing coverage and the adviser still advises on taking out MPPI then surely there must be question marks?

The bank rejected my claim because I completed a form at the time of taking up MPPI. Not entirely sure how that exonerates the bank but .. hey ho. I've not bothered going to the FOS about it as I'm pretty sure it wont get any further.

dunstonh

Well in my own case I had considerable existing coverage as outlined by the OP, including 12 months sick pay etc etc. I still ended up with MPPI... go figure.

And yet the FOS have no problem with that scenario in most cases.

addedvaluebob

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

So the adviser has a "duty of care" above and beyond FCA requirements? I don't think so.

Completely incorrect. It forms part of the requirement to 'know your client'. If the adviser failed to take into account the existence of employee benefits then the compliance team have not trained out the sales process properly and ultimately it is a failing of the company responsible for the sale.

[Deleted User]

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Completely incorrect.

…in your opinion

magpiecottage

saver861 wrote: »

I don't believe the advisers should know all the benefits of individual companies

Agreed

is it not the case that there should be some clear advice to consider existing coverage.

There is. In respect of MPPI, the Mortgage Code Compliance Board explained this in its Good Practice Notes.

The modern FSA/FCA rules are more generic as they cover all forms of insurance

If on the other hand the customer has explained existing coverage and the adviser still advises on taking out MPPI then surely there must be question marks?

Yes but a missale is not the only explanation. Leaving aside non-advised sales, if the customer describes the benefits wrongly that is not the advisers fault.

Also, whilst a policy may duplicate some existing cover it may provide additional cover not given elsewhere. Some policies are a package so that you cannot pick and choose which parts to have. Such policies can lawfully be sold if that is the best an adviser can offer - or if, as could be the case, a policy without the additional cover was no more expensive.