Help on making a court claim against mis-sold Critical Illness Cover

marnstars

Hello - I'm after some help please.

Some years ago, my partner (at the time) and I took out some critical illness cover from then Royal & Sun Alliance (R&SA). It was sold to us by a rep who visited us and we were happy with the policy. It was a fixed term joint policy (25 yrs) and the payments were around £20pm and again fixed.

Around 18months or so in to the policy, we took a random call from one of their reps calling to make an appt for an annual review. A chap visited us, commented that everything was in order with our finances, but they had a much better Critical Illness Cover available and suggested that considering we were on a joint policy, it really did make sense to increase premiums by a slight amount and enjoy cover for both at a higher level. The payments were initially around £14 for me and £17 for my wife and we were told that the payments did move slightly on review (no more than inflation), as did the the insurance cover when inflation was added to premiums.

A few years on, premiums were increasing >10% per annum and the insurance cover was remaining static. The payments were up to £50 each per month and we were forced to close one of these (my wifes) and the premiums had become unsustainable for us. My Dad died when I was a young lad (9) and I've probably always kept a level greater than I need on life insurance for my kids benefit and feel the same way about the critical illness insurance for the same reasons.

(Sorry this is getting lengthy). In short, I made a complaint that I was felt I was targeted by R&SA (now Phoenix) to rid them of an unsustainable policy for them. Targeting us to get us off that fixed price/fixed term policy and onto a new one that allowed for inflation. Let alone a complaint on how the payments had rocketed and the policy payout levels hadn't (as promised)! They rejected it. What happened next, well I engaged back with them and sent them another letter - I then forgot about this until the next premium hike came ( ). In short, I lost the right to take this to the Ombudsman - I did, but they couldn't do anything with it as too much time had elapsed (six months). So questions if anyone can help?

Ar

• e there any firms that will take on such claims (such as they do with PPI)?
• Has anyone suffered to the same fate with R&SA and targeted switching to their then "Universal Policy"?
• Any guid

ance on how to take this to court?

If you've got this far - a million thanks for taking the time to read and I much appreciate any help or advice.:A

Cheers :beer:

kingstreet

What was the inception date of the policy?

Pre 29 April 1989?

Between 29 April 1989 and January 2005?

After January 2005?

It sounds like the salesman (that's just what they are) saw an opportunity to "churn" your simple term assurance product and sell you a flexible unit-linked whole life to replace it.

Typically, a term assurance was a fixed sum assured, over a fixed term, for a fixed premium.

The replacement was (in the 80s and 90s) the be-all-and-end-all, designed to run for the whole of your life and to combine savings and protection in one plan. Fortunately, such contracts also paid a very healthy commission.

Such plans involved you signing up to a contract with a variable sum assured and variable premiums. Often these were sold on a maximum cover basis. This gave a high sum assured, but only for a limited time - ten years was the usual maximum. At the first plan review, the cover could only be maintained with a massive increase in premiums, or the premiums could continue at the current level, but the sum assured would drop drastically.

Frankly, the advice here (at the time)would probably have been to stick with the term assurance and forget the "replacement" as these offered lousy value for money, outside the first ten years. Where you go from here depends on when the policy was taken out as consumer protection has changed in the periods mentioned. As to court action, I would suggest that to be potentially very expensive and unlikely to produce much of a result for you. However, there are one or two others on here who may have something to add, once we know the start date.

marnstars

kingstreet wrote: »

What was the inception date of the policy?

Pre 29 April 1989?

Between 29 April 1989 and January 2005?

After January 2005?

It sounds like the salesman (that's just what they are) saw an opportunity to "churn" your simple term assurance product and sell you a flexible unit-linked whole life to replace it.

Typically, a term assurance was a fixed sum assured, over a fixed term, for a fixed premium.

The replacement was (in the 80s and 90s) the be-all-and-end-all, designed to run for the whole of your life and to combine savings and protection in one plan. Fortunately, such contracts also paid a very healthy commission.

Such plans involved you signing up to a contract with a variable sum assured and variable premiums. Often these were sold on a maximum cover basis. This gave a high sum assured, but only for a limited time - ten years was the usual maximum. At the first plan review, the cover could only be maintained with a massive increase in premiums, or the premiums could continue at the current level, but the sum assured would drop drastically.

Frankly, the advice here (at the time)would probably have been to stick with the term assurance and forget the "replacement" as these offered lousy value for money, outside the first ten years. Where you go from here depends on when the policy was taken out as consumer protection has changed in the periods mentioned. As to court action, I would suggest that to be potentially very expensive and unlikely to produce much of a result for you. However, there are one or two others on here who may have something to add, once we know the start date.

The inception date for the initial policy was 1999 and the secondary changed policy around around 2001.

The ombudsman won't give any advice or help, given now it's out of their jurisdiction - but the conversation I had with them seem to "suggest" to me that I had a case ...... if only I'd kept to the rules! And who am I to judge!

The process of a court claim here I have no idea about - or even any additional risk? Hence, looking a possibility of a no-risk claim through an agency or looking for others who have similar issues.

Appreciate your help and guidance. :A

Quentin

marnstars wrote: »

The process of a court claim here I have no idea about - or even any additional risk? Hence, looking a possibility of a no-risk claim through an agency or looking for others who have similar issues.

The main "risk" with a court claim is losing the case. If you go to court you have to pay all the court fees upfront, but if you win they get added onto the award - but if you lose then you have lost the court fees too.

The loser also pays the other sides allowable expenses and costs.

If you are looking for a no win no fee "agency" to pursue this through court for you this is not their field!

marnstars

Quentin wrote: »

The main "risk" with a court claim is losing the case. If you go to court you have to pay all the court fees upfront, but if you win they get added onto the award - but if you lose then you have lost the court fees too.

The loser also pays the other sides allowable expenses and costs.

If you are looking for a no win no fee "agency" to pursue this through court for you this is not their field!

Looks like I've definitely lost then! :eek:

It's really no wonder I don't let these ******* through my door any longer.

Mr. N. Loggin, ex-R&SA - if you're about, care to explain yourself! :mad: ..... especially sat along side the decent folk on here who go out of their way to help!

dunstonh

(Sorry this is getting lengthy). In short, I made a complaint that I was felt I was targeted by R&SA (now Phoenix) to rid them of an unsustainable policy for them. Targeting us to get us off that fixed price/fixed term policy and onto a new one that allowed for inflation. Let alone a complaint on how the payments had rocketed and the policy payout levels hadn't (as promised)! They rejected it. What happened next, well I engaged back with them and sent them another letter - I then forgot about this until the next premium hike came ( ). In short, I lost the right to take this to the Ombudsman - I did, but they couldn't do anything with it as too much time had elapsed (six months). So questions if anyone can help?

I dont recall R&SA ever having their own sales force. They may have done but just not been active in my area. However, R&SA are only responsible for their staff. You mentioned a few times that you felt it was an R&SA rep but are you sure?

The payments were initially around £14 for me and £17 for my wife and we were told that the payments did move slightly on review (no more than inflation), as did the the insurance cover when inflation was added to premiums.

Actually, the advice at that point does have some merit and could easily be justified. An index linked policy can very easily considered to be best advice. It avoids inflation erosion.

A few years on, premiums were increasing >10% per annum and the insurance cover was remaining static. The payments were up to £50 each per month and we were forced to close one of these (my wifes) and the premiums had become unsustainable for us. My Dad died when I was a young lad (9) and I've probably always kept a level greater than I need on life insurance for my kids benefit and feel the same way about the critical illness insurance for the same reasons.

Most index linked premiums have the ability to turn off the index linking. Did you enquire to that option before cancelling?

The courts do not consider fairness and as there are no laws specific to the sale of insurance at that time, you would have to be clear on what law they have broken. Based on extremely limited info, I can't see any law broken. You can see areas where the FOS could rule against it potentially if it was within their remit but the law is different.

The insurer or seller is likely to fight the case. It is also not at all similar to PPI. So, you cant use those fly by nights. You need to speak to a solicitor. It will cost you but it will give you the chances of success and the costs you could suffer if you lost.

It's really no wonder I don't let these ******* through my door any longer.

Not an issue. The last of the insurance agents pulled out of the market in 2003. They havent been around for nearly a decade.

marnstars

Guys - appreciate your help.

Probably looking for evidence if possible to suggest that this behaviour was systemic within either the industry or possibly just within R&SA at the time.

You could possibly suggest a pattern of selling one policy, gaining commission; knowing full well that they can come back so soon afterwards and offer an improvement. Reality - maximises their commission!

I've had a lifetime of mis-selling from such crooks, I'm struggling to let this one go.

Thanks again - you're great people.

marnstars

dunstonh wrote: »

I dont recall R&SA ever having their own sales force. They may have done but just not been active in my area. However, R&SA are only responsible for their staff. You mentioned a few times that you felt it was an R&SA rep but are you sure?

Yes - it was an R&SA Rep, working from their Liverpool Office. Still have his business card "Sole Representative for R&SA products" - hence me feeling I was targeted to switch.

Not offered any form of "downgrading" at the time of complaining.

The index link element was sold as a two way benefit. I only see my premiums rising and the "benefits" remaining static.

dunstonh wrote: »

Not an issue. The last of the insurance agents pulled out of the market in 2003. They havent been around for nearly a decade.

I thought it had gone quiet out there - thankfully!

As always - good advice. :beer:

dunstonh

Probably looking for evidence if possible to suggest that this behaviour was systemic within either the industry or possibly just within R&SA at the time.

It was not widespread but reputation wise, sales reps did often churn. However, reputation isnt enough to win a case. Evidence is.

The FOS consider fairness. It is in the area of fairness that these complaints often win. Your problem is going to be the legal proof of wrong doing and that is much harder.

kingstreet

FWIW I was a broker consultant with Sun Alliance (as was) at Liverpool Life Office (Exchange Street East), upto 1989. We had a very annoying direct sales force called SAPLIS, Sun Alliance Pension Life and Investment Services which was based in Cavern Walks, IIRC.

We regularly took calls from disgruntled clients wishing to complain about them, despite the fact we were run as totally separate firms.

It's quite possible this outfit was absorbed into the combined set-up after the merger, although my knowledge of them ends at that point...

bigmatt1174

marnstars wrote: »

Mr. N. Loggin, ex-R&SA - if you're about, care to explain yourself! :mad: ..... especially sat along side the decent folk on here who go out of their way to help!

It would appear was still active in the market as an Investment Advisor till 2009!