IFA's fact find document untrue

marchart

I was conned by an Independant Financial Advisor into cancelling an existing Mortgage Income Protection Insurance and taking out Critical Illness Cover. He said I should do this as it would provide better cover and pay out more for the same premium. I am now being told that I have no chance of proving that it was mis-sold as I signed a fact find document stating that I had no income protection at the time and in the event of accident or illness I would receive 12 months pay from my employer making CIC a suitable policy. I have concrete evidence that both of these statements are false. Is this document bulletproof and not open to be challenged? Where do I stand?

dunstonh

Is this document bulletproof and not open to be challenged?

Its not bulletproof. Indeed, we dont get clients to sign our factfind. However, if you do sign a document to say the content is correct, then its difficult to argue the case later that it isnt. The key document is the report as the factfind is effectively a data capture of details, the research leads to the recommendation but its the report that ties the whole lot together.

Can you clarify what you mean by Mortgage income protection insurance as there isnt actually a product type of that name. You have mortgage payment protection insurance (MPPI) which is similar in name or you have income protection (or permanent health insurance to give it the generic name). If it was MPPI, then Critical illness cover is typically above MPPI in the pecking order and does generally provider better cover albeit in a different way.

What exactly is the problem that has led to you now not being happy?

magpiecottage

It is more difficult if a fact find has been signed.

However, I have seen FOS accept an argument that it was just shoved under a consumer's nose as something else they need to sign - and if the fact find does not cover income protection properly, it could present the adviser with more difficulties.

Personally, I am of the view that income protection should be a higher priority so it sounds like a missale. I think it is probably worth complaining although I would not get my hopes up if I were you.

marchart

The policy was an accident and sickness policy that would pay £500 a month (my mortgage) after 30 days off work for a two year period. I am unhappy because had I had such an accident or an illness that wasn't classified as critical, I would have had only SSP as an income after just a week.

dunstonh

The policy was an accident and sickness policy that would pay £500 a month (my mortgage) after 30 days off work for a two year period.

This forum is full of people complaining about being sold PPI. You complaint is rather unique in that you are complaining that you were told not have PPI but have a better policy

I am unhappy because had I had such an accident or an illness that wasn't classified as critical, I would have had only SSP as an income after just a week.

No policy gives full coverage. To be fully covered in all areas you would need around 3 or 4 policies. So, whenever you restrict yourself to covering only one thing, you are always taking a gamble.

marchart

All I want is to have my mortgage payments covered if I am off work for a signifficant period (i.e. more than a month and up to a year or so). I have gone back to the original cover and feel comfortable with this. My gripe was about being advised to change to a cover that would not do this. This policy was not what I needed but netted the advisor £800. I approached the advisor for advice on pensions not insurance, it was him that asked to see what kind of mortgage protection I had and promised he could get a better deal.

dunstonh

I have gone back to the original cover and feel comfortable with this.

PHI rather than PPI would have been better.

This policy was not what I needed but netted the advisor £800.

PPI pays on drip and more profitable over the term than a CI policy.

marchart

I think we have sstrayed way off track here. My original argument is that a financial advisor should not be able to log FALSE STATEMENTS on a document and then hide behind said document when challenged. If I sign a document saying I have one leg, surely showing that I have two legs should be enough to prove that the document is wrong?

HappyHarry

Usually, CIC would be considered to be a far superior product to MPPI.

However, if you are unhappy, raise a complaint with the IFA.

Once they respond, if you are still unhappy, raise your complaint with the FOS.

However, it does sound as if you could just take an MPPI policy now, and cancel your CIC policy if that is what you really want.

As you would have paid the same premiums anyway, and haven't tried to make a claim, you haven't suffered any material loss, so I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve my complaining about misselling.

kingstreet

Were you advised, in writing, to cancel the original ASU?

dunstonh

If I sign a document saying I have one leg, surely showing that I have two legs should be enough to prove that the document is wrong?

A factfind is just a record of what you told the adviser. If it contains incorrect information then it can be one of two things. The adviser recorded it incorrectly or you told them incorrectly. As you signed it saying it was correct, it leaves you little scope in your argument.

If you want PPI then buy PPI. If you want something better than PPI then buy PHI.