Halifax Ultimate Reward - The extras worth it?

PeacefulWaters

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

But you (the OP) might not be able to buy it for less than £120 a year. If that's the case then Nationwide Plus at £10 a month may be an option worth considering, especially since it also pays 3% AER interest on up to £2.5K with no minimum pay in.


If you go this route, just downgrade your Halifax account to the standard Reward variant to retain the £60 a year Reward payments.

I think that's roughly what I was rather sleepily getting at.

nwc389

We have at least two holidays a year now and have twice used the home emergency cover - once to get an overflowing drain cleared on a bank holiday and the other they had to send a locksmith after a key broke in the front door and my OH was locked out .
Don't miss what we pay for it and both agree it was good to have the cover when we needed it.

grumbler

nwc389 wrote: »

We have at least two holidays a year

If it's Europe, it costs £0 with Nationwide Flex account (£40 p.a. for worldwide; in fact less as you can renew it right before the holiday). A stand alone family yearly worldwide insurance costs just £46 (£27 for Europe).
Re home emergencies, I didn't have any for 15 years. How much have I saved by not paying for the insurance? You were very unlucky to need it twice in a year.

pinkdalek

grumbler wrote: »

Re home emergencies, I didn't have any for 15 years. How much have I saved by not paying for the insurance? You were very unlucky to need it twice in a year.

That is what insurance is for.....to insure.
Truth is you have not saved anything, the money you would have used you have spent on other things that's all.
Imagine how much it would cost had something occurred and you were not insured.
They may have been unlucky to use it twice, however because they had the protection in place it has saved them paying out more and given them peace of mind. So really have they been unlucky? Surely they would have been unlucky to have had two instances without being covered in the same year?

grumbler

pinkdalek wrote: »

That is what insurance is for.....to insure.

... and to make money from the customers.

pinkdalek wrote: »

Truth is you have not saved anything, the money you would have used you have spent on other things that's all.

I can assure you that it's not the truth, but even if I spent it on something, I would have been better off because I would have received something real in return for the money I spent.

Imagine how much it would cost had something occurred and you were not insured.

What occurred? My building and content are insured, although I consider stopping paying for this soon when I finish paying my mortgage off (in fact I could have paid it off a few years ago, but the bank is paying me for having the mortgage, not vice versa). I have plenty of money saved to pay for any emergency easily, and this will cost me much less than I would have paid for the insurance over 15 years. That's how insurance companies make their profit.

They may have been unlucky to use it twice, however because they had the protection in place it has saved them paying out more and given them peace of mind.

I have peace of mind too.

So really have they been unlucky? Surely they would have been unlucky to have had two instances without being covered in the same year?

The point was that it would be extremely unlikely to keep having two accidents per year over many years, so it wasn't a representative example.

nwc389

Just to clarify my two incidents were not in the same year , however on both counts we felt we had 'our moneys worth' as I would imagine that calling out dynorod ( or some similar company) on a bank holiday would have been pretty expensive and trust me it wasn't a job that could wait !
The other job needed a locksmith out of hours so again it wouldn't be cheap .
For £10 a month that I don't miss we have cover for stupid unexpected incidents like that and the holiday insurance , breakdown cover and our phones are covered . I have never really bothered insuring stuff other than the basic essentials ( home / life/ car etc) but this seems to offer decent value for the money paid .

pinkdalek

So going off your philosophy we shouldn't bother with insurances, cos they are only there to make businesses profit. We will all just live in hope that we never have any unlucky incidents. Fire, theft, storm damage, earthquakes, vandalism, accidental damages. But don't worry the money we save in not paying premiums will more than cover the costs and stress of replacing. I

grumbler

pinkdalek wrote: »

So going off your philosophy we shouldn't bother with insurances, cos they are only there to make businesses profit.

Well, I am not saying that it's everyone's cup of tea. The point was that the real cost of home emergency cover can be much smaller than you think and most insurances are poor value for money for the majority of people.
Personally I pay only for compulsory insurances. The content insurance isn't compulsory, but it costs me nothing (in fact, just ~£10 p.a. in total together with the building one). I'd be happy to have, say, £10K voluntary excess on my car insurance if this reduced the premiums significantly, but unfortunately, insurers don't offer such opportunity.

We will all just live in hope that we never have any unlucky incidents. Fire, theft, storm damage, earthquakes, vandalism, accidental damages. But don't worry the money we save in not paying premiums will more than cover the costs and stress of replacing.

On average, not always. I can easily pay for any emergency repair and can easily take the risk that it can cost me more than I saved already and will save in the future, but this is very unlikely in the long run.

Yet another common delusion (exploited by the banks) is that everyone with a family and a mortgage has to have a life insurance. In fact, the difference between renting a house and owning it with a mortgage is very small and if you didn't have life insurance while renting, there is no reason for buying it after buying a house. This has to be an absolutely independent decision whether to have life insurance or not.

pinkdalek

Well I am no plumber and lets just say when I had a burst pipe, pouring out water in my kitchen I really appreciated someone coming round fixing it without it causing any further damage to my property. My home emergency cover doesn't cost me more because I've claimed on it.
I'm no car mechnic either but have really appreciated the AA coming out to help me when my car broke down.

I have not said that insurances are compulsary, (there are some that are e.g. motor). What I am saying is they are there to give people peace of mind. Having made claims on different insurances and how my claim is handled then influences greatly if I renew with them or promote them to other people/friends.

All businesses that sell something are only there to make profits, not just the insurance industry.

You say most insurances are poor value for money, on what evidence seeing as you don't bother with them?

Re life insurance, no one has to have it, however the burden of passing on a debt to family once someone has passed away isn't something I would like. It's all very well saying we can sell the house, but it can take time, or it still might be someone's home e.g. the children and then where do they go? The mortgage company is not a charity. People should take responsibility of their debts and finances by having something set up should the worst happen.

grumbler

pinkdalek wrote: »

Well I am no plumber and lets just say when I had a burst pipe, pouring out water in my kitchen I really appreciated someone coming round fixing it without it causing any further damage to my property.

Neither am I. There are many companies around that will come and fix everything if you pay them.

I'm no car mechnic either but have really appreciated the AA coming out to help me when my car broke down.

Neither am I. I do pay for roadside assistance - only because I don't know what garage to call for a help in the middle of nowhere. Unlike you, I have a full cover with Autoaid - and pay much less - only because I am prepared to foot the bill and then claim the money from the insurer.

I have not said that insurances are compulsary,

Neither have I.

You say most insurances are poor value for money,

... for most people.

on what evidence seeing as you don't bother with them?

On my own experience - and I am a pretty ordinary person. See above what I said about 15 years without any accidents at home.
Mobile insurance is another example. Only people that lose/damage their phones frequently benefit from them. Most people don't.

Re life insurance, no one has to have it, however the burden of passing on a debt to family once someone has passed away isn't something I would like. It's all very well saying we can sell the house, but it can take time, or it still might be someone's home e.g. the children and then where do they go?

Where would they go if the house was rented?
I didn't advocate not having life insurance. My point was that the decision to have it or not beared no relation to being a homeowner or a tenant.