Comprehensive protection plan

Flakey

Hi
My husband was persuaded by a financial advisor to take out a plan in 1996 which he thinks is to replace income if he was unable to work through disability. He does not have his policy documents and Windsor Life have been particularly unhelpful with clarifying what the benefits would be and under what circumstances. He has been paying in since 96.
It strikes me that as a teacher he was already well protected with the local government pension scheme.
Would he have grounds for mis-selling?
Any advice appreciated.

dunstonh

It strikes me that as a teacher he was already well protected with the local government pension scheme.

And when the 6 months full pay, 6 months half pay runs out, what happens then?

Would he have grounds for mis-selling?

Nothing you have said suggests any wrongdoing. It isn't PPI. It is PHI and PHI is long term income protection. Designed to kick in and pay right up to retirement or selected age should you become ill and unable to work.

Quentin

Flakey wrote: »

Windsor Life have been particularly unhelpful with clarifying what the benefits would be and under what circumstances.
Would he have grounds for mis-selling?
Any advice appreciated.

As posted in your thread in the insurance forum, you need to establish what he was sold before going down the mis-selling route.

Pursue a complaint with them about their unhelpful responses (escalate to FOS at no cost to you if you are unhappy with their reply) and take it from the answer you eventually get.

dunstonh

Pursue a complaint with them about their unhelpful responses (escalate to FOS at no cost to you if you are unhappy with their reply) and take it from the answer you eventually get.

Windsor Life would never have sold the policy. So, they would know little or nothing about the actual sale of it. They also have no regulatory permissions to give opinion or advice. All they can do is answer specific questions relating to facts of the policy. Often people find that the responses are limited and unhelpful without realising that they cant answer many of the questions asked. Effectively, all they can say is when it was set up and sum insureds.

As this is a long term medically underwritten income protection policy (set up pre-regulation unless it has an investment element), generically, it does not appear mis-sold on the basis the OP is saying. Teachers benefits do not provide long term income protection and a PHI policy is geared for that need.

magpiecottage

Flakey wrote: »

It strikes me that as a teacher he was already well protected with the local government pension scheme.

I think this shows you do not really know what benefits he is actually entitled to as teachers are not members of the local government scheme.

Flakey

Thanks for replies - on further investigation it would seem that there is some investment as the last annual statement says it has a value of £1,300 - why would this make a difference? I realise that he is actually in the teachers pension but as far as I'm aware the benefits are not massively dissimilar to LGPS, we have a friend who was recently retired on ill health grounds as he was unable to continue teaching - so I guess this is what I mean by the policy being unnecessary as it calls itself a 'disability plan'.
The financial advisor who suggested this policy also persuaded me to come out of my local government pension and invest in a private pension with him which suggests he was more interested in the commission he would get than having our interests at heart.

dunstonh

on further investigation it would seem that there is some investment as the last annual statement says it has a value of £1,300 - why would this make a difference?

Investment backed plans were regulated since 1988. Pure protection came much later

I realise that he is actually in the teachers pension but as far as I'm aware the benefits are not massively dissimilar to LGPS, we have a friend who was recently retired on ill health grounds as he was unable to continue teaching - so I guess this is what I mean by the policy being unnecessary as it calls itself a 'disability plan'.

income is based on years of service and very difficult to qualify for. That is where the insurance comes in. It should be set up either as 12 months deferment or 6 months/12 months split

he financial advisor who suggested this policy also persuaded me to come out of my local government pension and invest in a private pension

Now that is wrong.