Claiming on non-mis-sold insurance - unreasonable conditions

roonaldo

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

The Op complains that period only kicks in after the PILON has ended.QUOTE]
Yes but its not the fault of the policy or the sale that he received pay in lieu, you cant claim to be unemployed when still being paid for that time in question.

[Deleted User]

roonaldo wrote: »

Yes but its not the fault of the policy or the sale that he received pay in lieu, you cant claim to be unemployed when still being paid for that time in question.

Nevertheless, it means no payout for several months; hence my describing it as a poor policy for anyone other than the long-term unemployed.

dunstonh

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.

There is no further deferment. The policy on this thread is a straight 60 days from date employment ends.

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.

PILON does not always get paid. However, all PILON does is extend the leaving date. Benefits dont get paid until the leaving date as well.

Nevertheless, it means no payout for several months; hence my describing it as a poor policy for anyone other than the long-term unemployed.

Personally, I am not a fan of 60 day plans. However, as an IFA, I don't have to worry about that as I could recommend 30 day versions. That said, the price on 60 day plans is usually cheaper than 30 day versions. Frequently with these things you get what you pay for.

Someone with a good level of savings may well prefer to take a 60 day deferment over 30 day and pay less per month for that. Someone with little or no savings may prefer to pay more for a 30 day deferment with back to day 1 benefit. it is all about choice. It is not a fault of a policy and it does not make a policy bad if it is the budget option (even if you or I don't particularly like the budget version).

roonaldo

Nevertheless, it means no payout for several months; hence my describing it as a poor policy for anyone other than the long-term unemployed.

No, cos if its pays back to day 1 there is nothing wrong with that and this is normal. The OP would have found it hard to find a policy where he could register a claim on day 1 of unemployment and for it pay out immediately. If he did find one the premium would be loaded for it.

It's only poor for his circumstances at that time not that its a poor policy or mis-sold (on this basis)

[Deleted User]

roonaldo wrote: »

It's only poor for his circumstances at that time not that its a poor policy or mis-sold (on this basis)

I'd say it's a poor policy that was poor for his circumstances but wasn't mis-sold because he agreed to it.:p