Claiming on non-mis-sold insurance - unreasonable conditions

phase9174

I am someone who bought into PPI and unfortunately wasn't mis-sold it.

Recently, my job was made redundant and I actually found myself in a position to claim on the PPI. Now I'm finding that the conditions of the PPI claim are pretty ridiculous and therefore feel like the insurance is not worthwhile from the other side of mis-selling.

The conditions of payment are that first I have to finish the payment in lieu of notice period and then on top of that wait for a further 60 days deferment period. I can understand the lieu of notice side of this, but the deferment period just seems unfair. They are expecting me to remain out of work for 2 months before I can claim the 'benefits' that I have contributed to at a fairly high monthly premium (certainly more than I will ever claim hopefully)!

I am just wondering if anyone else has experienced this situation and if anyone feels this is a different form of mis-selling? I would certainly not have continued the premium if I realised this and will certainly cancel the insurance as soon as possible.

Any views appreciated...

bonjen3

I understand how you feel, it is pretty rubbish cover isnt it but the answer you will no doubt get is the terms of the policy would of been set out before you bought. It's not the banks fault that you didnt read them.

_Andy_

This would all have been in the policy docs/T&Cs you agreed to

dunstonh

Now I'm finding that the conditions of the PPI claim are pretty ridiculous and therefore feel like the insurance is not worthwhile from the other side of mis-selling.

If the conditions are too onerous then that can be a complaint made.

The conditions of payment are that first I have to finish the payment in lieu of notice period and then on top of that wait for a further 60 days deferment period. I can understand the lieu of notice side of this, but the deferment period just seems unfair. They are expecting me to remain out of work for 2 months before I can claim the 'benefits' that I have contributed to at a fairly high monthly premium (certainly more than I will ever claim hopefully)!

Nothing wrong with those conditions at all. They seem very fair and are the norm you would expect.

I think the problem is your misunderstanding of what PILON is. Your employment doesnt end until PILON does. So, lets say you were made redundant today but have 1 month of PILON then your employment doesnt end until 1 month from now.

I am just wondering if anyone else has experienced this situation and if anyone feels this is a different form of mis-selling?

It is not mis-selling and is standard terms.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

I think the problem is your misunderstanding of what PILON is. Your employment doesnt end until PILON does. So, lets say you were made redundant today but have 1 month of PILON then your employment doesnt end until 1 month from now.

To be fair to the OP, he seems clear on this aspect and was questioning the further "deferment" period AFTER the Payment In Lieu Of Notice period.

dunstonh

To be fair to the OP, he seems clear on this aspect and was questioning the further "deferment" period AFTER the Payment In Lieu Of Notice period.

All plans have to have a deferment period. The premium cost would just be too great otherwise. The two main deferment periods are 30 days or 60 days. 60 day ones tend to be a little cheaper. There are plans which also have the option to backdate to day one if you qualify (these cost a bit more) and those that only start paying from day 31/61.

None of the things mentioned on this thread are mis-sale though.

If you use a tied agent, you get the product they offer. If you use an independent then you get the most suitable product applicable to your budget and requirements. A 60 day deferment would suggest budget option or tied agent product was used. However ,the details would have been fully disclosed.

To put all this another way, if you walk into an Apple store you will be sold an Apple product. If you find a Samsung product was better for you then you cannot complain to Apple that their product isnt as good as someone elses.

roonaldo

nothing indicates mis-sale. this is also bog standard in PPI, it doesnt make it bad policy.

the deferred period starts when claim is put in at end of employment. you cant register for unemployment if you are still being paid. nothing unusual here.

[Deleted User]

roonaldo wrote: »

nothing indicates mis-sale. this is also bog standard in PPI, it doesnt make it bad policy.

While I agree there was no mis-sale, I'd say a further two months deferment makes the policy next to useless for anyone other than someone long-term unemployed.
Therefore I'd say whether it was a "bad policy" is eminently debatable.

roonaldo

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

While I agree there was no mis-sale, I'd say a further two months deferment makes the policy next to useless for anyone other than someone long-term unemployed.
Therefore I'd say whether it was a "bad policy" is eminently debatable.

but..there is no further deferred period, there is just a sole 60 day deferred period, which is common.

roonaldo

Btw I was assuming the OP was referred to 60 day deferred period as the 60 day wait, but its unclear if they mean the wait or excess period. As a lot of policies will pay back to day one.

[Deleted User]

roonaldo wrote: »

but..there is no further deferred period, there is just a sole 60 day deferred period, which is common.

The Op complains that period only kicks in after the PILON has ended. Seems a very long time to wait. Most people will be back in work long before that, so it can really only benefit the long-term unemployed.