Can I claim back on my life and critical illness cover?

Indiatango

I was sold life and critical illness on a reviewable level cover basis instead of decreasing cover, which massively increased my monthly premiums.
I did not understand what this meant at the time of selling so did not understand the cost implications. If it had been explained to me I would never have gone ahead with the policy.

How would I go about claiming this money back and would I go to the broker company first ( new homes ) or the insurance company ( legal and general )?

[Deleted User]

Indiatango wrote: »

I was sold life and critical illness on a reviewable level cover basis

Nothing wrong with that as your circumstances could change a lot over the years...

How would I go about claiming this money back

You would need to show that you were immune to illness and immortal.

Life and critical illness cover doesn't have the same inherent faults as PPI and so it's difficult to see in what circumstances you could say it was mis-sold. So far, the only reason you have given is that it is too expensive...

magpiecottage

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

You would need to show that you were immune to illness and immortal.

In which case you would be God and therefore omniscient (all knowing).

It would then follow that you knew you did not need the policy when you took it out.

Indiatango

I was referring to the level cover...I would never have chosen this over decreasing cover. Obviously I'm not trying to claim money back for not dying over the past few years!!
Level cover has a substantially higher premium than the decreasing cover. At the time I did not understand the difference as this was never even mentioned that I had a choice!!

dunstonh

I was sold life and critical illness on a reviewable level cover basis instead of decreasing cover, which massively increased my monthly premiums.

First of all I would question that statement as the difference between level term and decreasing term is typically a few pence to a couple of pound at most. Indeed, the difference is often so minimal that people go with level term as a matter of course. Nothing wrong with that at all.

I did not understand what this meant at the time of selling so did not understand the cost implications. If it had been explained to me I would never have gone ahead with the policy.

Seeing as you think there was a massive difference, it would indicate that you still dont understand the cost implications. However, your lack of understanding is not grounds for complaint.

There is nothing wrong with level term being used instead of decreasing as long as there is justification. A broker could easily justify it on the basis of cost being so negligible and given that tiny difference, you felt that a little bit left over from repaying the mortgage would benefit. The broker should have a statement indicating why they chose level over decreasing on their files and ideally in their written report.

Another example that often happens for those in their 20s or early 30s is that they are impacted by the minimum premium. So, a decreasing term assurance could push the sum assured higher because of minimum premium but the benefit if largely eroded over time. Whereas a level term assurance on minimum premium gives a constant benefit.

misschicken

I was sold level term instead of decreasing and have had the difference returned to me. Decreasing was available but the sales person only recommended the more expensive level term and didn't say any other products were available. The difference in price was about £2.20 a month - which isn't a big difference as you say and might be considered negligible - however that should be a decision for the customer to make not the sales person.