Halifax TMPP and Life Assurance

Charmingly_Shallow

Afternoon All

First time poster, so please excuse me if I don't provide the facts in a clear enough detail.

Some initial background - married and mortgaged with the Halifax back in 1998. Divorced just under 10 years later, but with two daughters in tow, we decided (almost) amicably that the house would be kept, with my child support going to pay her half of the mortgage. From the beginning we enrolled in their life assurance / TMPP cover (critical illness/redundancy insurance) for peace of mind, and to avoid confusion post-divorce, I've pretty much left the covers untouched and in place. Poor financial thinking I admit, but I preferred a big bill to a big bust-up at the time (family outweighs finances sometimes).


Now the dust has more than settled, and my company placing new flexible benefit options in place which are a lot more cost effective being the impetus, I've dug out the paperwork and started doing insurance/cover comparisons, and noticed a few possible oddities which makes me wonder if I have a case to claim PPI misselling:

• Life cover is already present in the TMPP, so was the Life Assurance arranged by the Halifax with St.Andrew insurers actually required?
• In the life assurance paperwork it mentions Critical Illness cover, and yet isn't this duplication with the critical illness cover also provided in the TMPP?
• In addition, back in 2010, my TMPP life cover had to be amended because it had been set at just under £79000 for me and my joint mortgage holder (i.e. ex-wife), with a critical illness cover for me of just under £79000 and £15500 for her. These figures appeared to be a mistake on their part, and the Halifax had to change it to £55535 for both of us for both the life cover and critical illness cover, so I had been paying an incorrect TMPP cover up until then.

I haven't filled in a form yet, but I was wondering if the combined wisdom of the MSE forum reckoned Halifax have a case to answer. I have no moral indignation for this query, purely a dislike if I've been misled and I must admit to just a hint of mercenary interest.

Many thanks for any thoughts,

CS

dunstonh

ife cover is already present in the TMPP, so was the Life Assurance arranged by the Halifax with St.Andrew insurers actually required?

For of all, life assurance is not PPI. So, forget about making PPI complaints on non-PPI products. The TMPP is a multi-segment plan that allows multiple policies under one policy.

Most people have multiple life assurance plans. Indeed, it is the right thing to do. You have one to cover your debts and one to cover your family protection. Sometimes you have more. The most I have arranged for a couple is 6. So, what you have is quite normal and to be expected. I would be more concerned if it was just one.

In the life assurance paperwork it mentions Critical Illness cover, and yet isn't this duplication with the critical illness cover also provided in the TMPP?

Why would it be a duplication? First of all do you actually have the cover? The policy booklet covers all options available but it doesnt mean you have all options. Does the policy schedule say you have it?

And just like the life assurance, CI cover is typically arranged one for debts and one for lump sum payment. Typically figures ideal for cover are all your debts plus around 4 times your income.

I haven't filled in a form yet, but I was wondering if the combined wisdom of the MSE forum reckoned Halifax have a case to answer.

It is good you havent filled a form in yet as a PPI form is not applicable.

There appears to be nothing wrong in what you have said. It actually seems quite normal and what you would expect. One policy for mortgage and another for extra provision for the family.

[Deleted User]

Charmingly_Shallow wrote: »

we enrolled in their life assurance / TMPP cover (critical illness/redundancy insurance) for peace of mind,

This simple statement rather precludes you from trying to complain about mis-selling. You took out this insurance (which is not PPI and has none of the faults inherent with that kind of policy) voluntarily for "peace of mind".

I see no basis for complaint in your post, the fact that some of your insurance overlaps is incidental unless you can show you were told you had to take it in addition to existing cover...

Charmingly_Shallow

Fair enough and thanks for the responses. I wanted to check first, and there's always the niggling suspicion when you sit down in the room with the bank's representative that you're being stitched up somewhere along the line, and god knows I didn't want to sign up to one of those ubiquitous PPI Claim companies bombarding me on the TV/Landline/Mobile.

On the positive side, finally getting around to looking at the payments through the Halifax Life Assurance and TMPP, going through my company's new employee benefit options my monthly payment for all the covers (Life, Critical and Redundancy) will drop by half, I'll get Personal Accident cover as well, and my Life Assurance (which hopefully won't get used anytime soon ), will pay out 4 times the amount. Can't really complain therefore going forward.

Many thanks again,

CS

dunstonh

there's always the niggling suspicion when you sit down in the room with the bank's representative that you're being stitched up somewhere along the line,

Their products are expensive and often low quality but on the whole with the mortgage side they fit the purpose. The people doing the mortgages in the banks are typically not the problem. The untrained clerks pushing loans and credit cards are where most of the problems are.

will pay out 4 times the amount.

That is not a lot and would leave you underinsured in most cases. It is designed to go some way to replace short term income or help reduced pension provision. A really crude and dirty method for requirement is 10x income plus all debts. That can often be reduced with a better analysis but that is the sort of ballpark you would expect.

Charmingly_Shallow

dunstonh wrote: »

Their products are expensive and often low quality but on the whole with the mortgage side they fit the purpose. The people doing the mortgages in the banks are typically not the problem. The untrained clerks pushing loans and credit cards are where most of the problems are.

I think my view is tainted by the fact that everytime I go into a bank to discuss mortgages or update existing details, it's always someone different and they have an almost eagerness to try and throw out as many acronyms and product names as physically possible. I did feel a little guilty once when a spotty youth eagerly told me after 10 minutes of his eager sales pitch and tapping away at the computer his bank could provide my current mortgage cheaper, and then I enquired about all the other expenses that would be involved in swapping e.g. product fees, etc. His crestfallen look after the recalculations did make me feel a trifle bad...

dunstonh wrote: »

That is not a lot and would leave you underinsured in most cases. It is designed to go some way to replace short term income or help reduced pension provision. A really crude and dirty method for requirement is 10x income plus all debts. That can often be reduced with a better analysis but that is the sort of ballpark you would expect.

The multiplier is actually about 6 times my salary, which is 4 times more than the cover provided by the Halifax policy, which is what I meant. I'll most likely increase the multiplier in the future, but I was more taken with the cost saving and improvement in my overall cover. Just goes to show you should always shop around for your cover and not get carried away signing pieces of paper when you apply for a mortgage.