B&B or Scottish Equitable/Aegon ... Who do I chase?

Davcor

Hi All ... and apologies in advance for yet another (yawn) Newbie question.

We took out our mortgage with Bradford and Bingley in 1989 [it finishes this year]. No problem there.

In 2003, following an accident scare, we arranged to see our local B&B Financial Adviser (working under the auspices of The Market Place - Bradford and Bingley), to discuss taking out a Life Insurance Policy.

After the meeting, the Financial Adviser sent me a letter stating (amongst other recommendations) that;

"... we identified that you have needs in the following area(s):
Income Protection Cover
Life Cover
Retirement Planning
Critical Illness Cover."

I declined the Retirement Planning and Critical Illness Cover and agreed to purchase Income Protection Cover and Life Cover.
No problem there.

I am now faced with having to retire early due to ill-health and, having contacted Bradford and Bingley re: a possible problem in continuing our Mortgage repayments until September discovered that the Mortgage already contained a 'built-in' MPPI covering .... wait for it ..... Accident, Sickness, Critical Illness, Accidental Death and Unemployment. St Andrews Insurance (the new MPPI Provider for B&B) has now accepted my claim and the Policy is doing what it was designed to do. No problem there.

Apologies if this missive is turning into a massive but my question is this;

Should/could the Bradford and Bingley Adviser have been aware of this existing MPPI on my Mortgage and, if so, have I been mis-sold duplicate and totally unnecessary Insurances? If the answer to the last is 'Yes' then who do I claim against? Bradford and Bingley or the two Insurance Companies that underwrote the Policies?

Any and all help/advice/assistance/brickbats would be immensely appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
DC.

dunstonh

Should/could the Bradford and Bingley Adviser have been aware of this existing MPPI on my Mortgage and, if so, have I been mis-sold duplicate and totally unnecessary Insurances? If the answer to the last is 'Yes' then who do I claim against? Bradford and Bingley or the two Insurance Companies that underwrote the Policies?

1 - did you tell them the MPPI existed? The financial adviser would not have had access to information at that level from B&B as it was a separate company. So, would be dependent on you telling them.

2 - does it matter? Income protection is frequently used in addition to MPPI. usually with the deferment periods to match. What is the deferment period on the income protection?

3 - MPPi does not cover critical illness cover or life assurance. So, no overlap there.

Davcor

Good evening dunstonh - and many thanks for your startlingly prompt reply!

In answer to;

1) - I didn't inform them of the MPPI as I was totally unaware that it already existed within the Mortgage Repayment structure. If I had known that I was already covered then I would have had no need to initiate the meeting in the first instance. Forgive the naivety - but I had assumed, since I was in a meeting in the B&B Offices with an Adviser working for B&B's 'The Market Place', that I was dealing with someone who would have had access to my Mortgage details.

2) - The deferment period is 52 weeks.

3) - I defer to your knowledge re: MPPI critical illness and life assurance.

DC.

[Deleted User]

Davcor wrote: »

I didn't inform them of the MPPI as I was totally unaware that it already existed within the Mortgage Repayment structure.

If you didn't inform him (for whatever reason) then that really isn't his fault. This is therefore not a valid complaint.

Davcor wrote: »

MPPI critical illness and life assurance.

Critical Illness and Life assurance are totally separate insurance policies with no overlap of cover with MPPI.

Insider101

Davcor wrote: »

2) - The deferment period is 52 weeks.

I think this is the key point.

Like Dunstonh said, IP is frequently set up to kick in when MPPI (which is a short term policy generally only paying for one or two years) runs out.

If that's the case then there is no overlap of cover.

Davcor

Despite the mental howls of anguish at your collective replies - I really am appreciating this vertical learning curve Gentlemen! My sense of financial grievance is probably self-induced. That said; I can't help but feel that something beyond my control has gone sadly awry somewhere?

[Deleted User]

Davcor wrote: »

I can't help but feel that something beyond my control has gone sadly awry somewhere?

Nothing you have said indicates any wrongdoing I'm afraid.

dunstonh

2) - The deferment period is 52 weeks.

This suggests they knew the MPPI existed as you would set it to 52 weeks if there was an MPPI. That is how it should be set up.

. That said; I can't help but feel that something beyond my control has gone sadly awry somewhere?

Everything set up as correctly from what we can see.

Davcor

This suggests they knew the MPPI existed as you would set it to 52 weeks if there was an MPPI. That is how it should be set up.

dunstonh: I do remember the Adviser telling me that there was a 'usual waiting period' during which the State would pay Statutory Sick Pay - but (in retrospective memory) I cannot honestly recall a deferment period of 52 weeks ever being mentioned. That really doesn't make financial sense to me given that I would have been incapable of maintaining all outgoings for twelve months.

[Deleted User]

Davcor wrote: »

That really doesn't make financial sense to me given that I would have been incapable of maintaining all outgoings for twelve months.

The point is that the MPPI would have been paid to you during the initial period and that is why the Income Protection had a long deferment .

Eleven years on, it sounds as if your memory of what you were told is a little inaccurate. Nothing unusual there, it's the case with most "complaints" of this nature.

As earlier, nothing you have said indicates any wrongdoing I'm afraid.

Davcor

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

The point is that the MPPI would have been paid to you during the initial period and that is why the Income Protection had a long deferment .

Eleven years on, it sounds as if your memory of what you were told is a little inaccurate. Nothing unusual there, it's the case with most "complaints" of this nature

Oh! Absolutely Moneyineptitude. I have no argument with the memory issue - after all, who amongst us has perfect recall? I would still stress the point however that I was unaware that I had MPPI in the first instance. As dunstonh has suggested in his previous - if they WERE aware of the existence of the MPPI and set the deferment period to 52 weeks accordingly (without explicitly explaining the reasoning behind that choice or the financial implications to me) then surely there is the hint of verbal 'sleight of hand' ?