Income protection

debonair

My point was that if the op honestly thought she was covered because of what she was led to believe by the bank then she should go ahead and claim. I know my story is different, I was just using it as an example to show that if you can't provide proof, or if you weren't as careful as you could have been, doesn't mean you cant claim. She was sold income protection and ppi - surely either one would have been sufficient and it turned out neither was any good in her time of need - I think she was poorly advised at best - deliberately mis sold at worse

dunstonh

My point was that if the op honestly thought she was covered because of what she was led to believe by the bank then she should go ahead and claim.

I see you point but the OP is effectively complaining that she should have been sold PPI. That has to be somewhat ironic given the PPI issue.

I know my story is different, I was just using it as an example to show that if you can't provide proof, or if you weren't as careful as you could have been, doesn't mean you cant claim.

Yours fell under PPI complaint rules. Income protection would fall under an advised process with a factfind, needs analysis and report. None of which exist with PPI.

surely either one would have been sufficient and it turned out neither was any good in her time of need - I think she was poorly advised at best - deliberately mis sold at worse

There is nothing in the OPs post to suggest poor advice or mis-sale. There could be but equally it could be bad memory or didnt listen. We don't know. The documentation will be key in this and with a complaint like that they would have to look at suitability and income protection trumps PPI for suitability. Although many people have a need for both but everyone has a need for income protection.

debonair

So nothing to lose by making the claim then? Bad advice or plain mis selling make your claim and take your chances on the decision. I was mis sold and am now two thousand pounds better off - why tell op not to make a claim when she clearly believes she was poorly advised by her bank - if they decide in her favour then they admit they were wrong and mis sold to her. She has nothing to lose and everything to gain. They should have explained exactly what the income protection covered, she lost her job and couldn't claim. The fact that she didn't know she couldn't claim proves she was mis sold. In her place I would want my premiums back, I think she should claim, I dont see any reason to suggest she should not claim.

-taff

The OPs complaint is that the cover didn't cover income protection but even if she did have income protection, it wouldn't have covered her in her circumstances.

To complain the non-existent cover didn't cover her for being sacked is not a great argument.

Insider101

debonair wrote: »

So nothing to lose by making the claim then? Bad advice or plain mis selling make your claim and take your chances on the decision. I was mis sold and am now two thousand pounds better off - why tell op not to make a claim when she clearly believes she was poorly advised by her bank - if they decide in her favour then they admit they were wrong and mis sold to her. She has nothing to lose and everything to gain. They should have explained exactly what the income protection covered, she lost her job and couldn't claim. The fact that she didn't know she couldn't claim proves she was mis sold. In her place I would want my premiums back, I think she should claim, I dont see any reason to suggest she should not claim.

The point was that there are too many opportunist complaints at the moment (this is what it is not a "claim" which is what you do if you suffer an insurer event). You only have to look at some of the ridiculous queries on this site to know that. If you've got genuine cause which you're sure of then by all means complain. But there are too many propel out there who are trying their luck because they smell a quick buck . Basically abusing the system. Only the OP really knows which category she falls into.

In this case the fact that the OP thought she could claim for sickness doesn't prove anything. Maybe she didn't listen to the adviser. Didn't read that policy docs properly. Has just forgotten what she took out over time. It could be any of the above.

dunstonh

if they decide in her favour then they admit they were wrong and mis sold to her.

They didnt mis-sell to her though. They didnt sell the product that she says she wanted. That is a different complaint to saying that you were sold that same product but didnt want it.

They should have explained exactly what the income protection covered, she lost her job and couldn't claim. The fact that she didn't know she couldn't claim proves she was mis sold.

It proves nothing of the sort. It could be mis-sold. It could be forgotten or misread or misunderstood. The key is in the documentation and unlike PPI there should be a good audit trail.

In her place I would want my premiums back, I think she should claim, I dont see any reason to suggest she should not claim.

The thrust of her complaint is that she should have been paying more and had more cover. Not that she shouldnt have being paying what she was.

magpiecottage

A couple of points. Firstly, 13 years ago long term income protection was not regulated so the OP is dependent on the sale being subject to whoever sold it volunteering jurisdiction to FOS. That may happen if the bank sold it but if it was an independent intermediary they almost certainly won't.

If they did, then the mere fact that it would not pay out for a job loss will not result in the complaint being upheld unless the evidence shows that the person selling it told them it would. As DunstonH says, there will be a fact find, illustration, "Key Features" document and policy document all saying it pays out on illness (after a waiting period) but nothing will say it pays out simply because they have lost their job.

So the evidence will show something rather different to what the OP says they were told.

This should be an easy rejection.