Lifesearch life assurance broker

barnishroader

Hi,

I just received a quote from the above online and within 2 minutes, there was a guy from them who called me to go through it. Very efficient!

He advised that rether than going for joint cover, to go for 2 seperate policies and the put them "in trust" as opposed to "into estate" as then there would be individual payouts and they would pay out in 2-3 weeks as opposed to 10-11 months if, god forbid, something happened to cause them to payout.

There is an increased cost of about £3 per month for the 2 seperate covers rather than a joint cover for my wife and i.

Can anyone advise me if this information is correct?

Also are they a creditable, independant broker?
They gave me quote for Norwich Union, Royal Liver and Liverpool Victoria.

dunstonh

Can anyone advise me if this information is correct?

If the beneficiares are the children, then yes. If it is each other then there is no point. Joint life first death would not suffer due to probate issues that a single life policy could do.

Also are they a creditable, independant broker?

No reason to think they are not.

They gave me quote for Norwich Union, Royal Liver and Liverpool Victoria.

I am assuming they are the top three that came out for you with your circumstances. Usually you would expect around 15 to come out on the list but they may cull the rest.

Where financial advice is being given, advisers are meant to factfind you first before giving any advice. If that has happened, then the advice should be good. The transaction ceases to be execution only the minute any advice, no matter how small, has been given.

barnishroader

dunstonh wrote: »

If the beneficiares are the children, then yes. If it is each other then there is no point. Joint life first death would not suffer due to probate issues that a single life policy could do.




No reason to think they are not.




I am assuming they are the top three that came out for you with your circumstances. Usually you would expect around 15 to come out on the list but they may cull the rest.

Where financial advice is being given, advisers are meant to factfind you first before giving any advice. If that has happened, then the advice should be good. The transaction ceases to be execution only the minute any advice, no matter how small, has been given.

well i filled out an online application and he asked me a number of questions over the phone so i guess this constitues fact finding.

I had thought they were fine as he seemd to be genuine but just wasn't sure about the different options.
i think his point about 2 seperate policies was if we were ever to split up then there would be no problem seperating the policies than if they were joint.

thanks for your help.

dunstonh

i think his point about 2 seperate policies was if we were ever to split up then there would be no problem seperating the policies than if they were joint.

And if you ever split up would you need to insure each other's lives?

Seems a bit weak to me as a reason to do it and pay more.

brad_s_uk

dunstonh wrote: »

Joint life first death would not suffer due to probate issues that a single life policy could do.

Does this apply regardless of whether the joint policy holders are married or not? (i.e does the other policy holder always get the payout direct regardless of status?) And what if both policy holders were to die at the same time?

dunstonh

joint life first death will not face an IHT liability as the proceeds are paid to surviving partner. If both die, then it could face an IHT liability as the proceeds form part of the estate. If there are children, then writing it in trust to the children can avoid that.

brad_s_uk

dunstonh wrote: »

joint life first death will not face an IHT liability as the proceeds are paid to surviving partner. If both die, then it could face an IHT liability as the proceeds form part of the estate. If there are children, then writing it in trust to the children can avoid that.

Thanks. Presume that is correct even if not married?

If the joint policy was covering a mortgage and it ended up going to the children (if both die), then who would ensure the mortgage gets paid off?

Or would the policy not need to be in trust because the proceeds going into the estate would in effect be cancelled out (for IHT purposes) by the mortgage debt? (although would that then leave the mortgage company waiting for probate and putting pressure on the family etc.)

dunstonh

If the joint policy was covering a mortgage and it ended up going to the children (if both die), then who would ensure the mortgage gets paid off?

You dont write a mortgage policy in trust unless there are other assets available to repay the mortgage in the event of death.

Or would the policy not need to be in trust because the proceeds going into the estate would in effect be cancelled out (for IHT purposes) by the mortgage debt?

That would be the case for most people.

although would that then leave the mortgage company waiting for probate and putting pressure on the family etc.)

Not if it is joint ownership.

Thanks. Presume that is correct even if not married?

Joint ownership means surviving owner gets the funds with no IHT payable. At least not until they die and their estate is calculated.

brad_s_uk

dunstonh wrote: »

Not if it is joint ownership.

Thanks. Think I understand now. So if both were to die at the same time then the life assurance payment would go into estate. The mortgage debt would then be automatically paid from the estate by probate etc. So without making any special arrangements the policy would automatically cover the mortgage debt in the event of both deaths (subject to sufficient benefit in the policy to cover the mortgage).

In a single death scenario, the benefit goes to the other policyholder who could then pay off the mortgage or use the money in another way