Mortgage decreasing term assurance with critical illness

Mortgage_Mark_2

I agree that the benefits of having two separate policies are clear, but there is no way on earth that it's cheaper to have two separate policies over one joint one, that was my point.

With such a small difference it actually makes sense to have two polices in my opinion, but cost is definitely not a reason for that!

lazer

I asked for 2 separate policies - more for critical illness than life insurance.


I think it costs about £2 extra a month, makes sense!

amnblog

jamesd wrote: »

If they do cost more then you have been mis-sold in my opinion.

A sweeping statement James, you do not know enough about the circumstances, and nothing about the discussions so cannot make that call.

Higher premium equals mis-sold is far too simplistic.

The vast majority of advisers are out there trying to do a decent job and getting these 'mis-sold' accusations thrown at them far too easily.

jamesd

I also explained where it might not have been a mis-sale. So far the limited information we have doesn't give any indication at all that there was a desire for more cover, nor that there was some difference in what was covered.

Rather than more decreasing amount cover I'd wonder about pure life cover with fixed amount, possibly with CI, or explaining the potential value of PHI. Of course decreasing cover could be appropriate sometimes, say if it was matched to the age and desire to pay the school fees of children, which would have a decreasing need as they get older and have fewer years to pay for.

Mortgage_Mark_2

Decreasing cover will not work for school fees. DTA was designed purely for mortgage cover, and that's the only scenario whereby you can guarantee it will work for what you want it to do. (Assuming it's matched to sum assured/term of mortgage, and said provider has a repayment guarantee...).

You'd probably be better off with something like a family income benefit for school fees, as you can also index link it.