Critical illness mis-selling? Discussion

RufCutRus

Hi Nearlyold

Thank you for your response and kind words. I believe it was miss sold as when I was sold this policy I was informed that this was better than any MPPI and that to better my chances of a mortgage it was better for me to take a Critical Illness cover and that the policy would cover in the unfortunate event that I was taken too I’ll to work permanently.
At no time was a list of illnesses ever conveyed to us at any stage until the time to claim happened where I was told that because firstly I wasnt Blind in both eyes, secondly it was only the right side of my body that was affected by arthritis and thirdly as Behcet’s disease was rare this too was not covered. Surely this is taking the fine print too literally! So again miss selling as I was unable to work permanently so therefore being miss lead by three salesmen so surely this has to be a case of miss selling? Well at least that’s what I was going for!
Again thank you

Rus

dunstonh

s. I believe it was miss sold as when I was sold this policy I was informed that this was better than any MPPI and that to better my chances of a mortgage it was better for me to take a Critical Illness cover and that the policy would cover in the unfortunate event that I was taken too I’ll to work permanently.

It is better than MPPI in the general pecking order. It would cover in the event of a specified critical illness occurring.

It wasn't a condition of borrowing and if you were told that then it was missold. However, you almost certainly have no evidence to support that allegation and the firm won't either. Its very rare for a complaint on that basis to succeed. Especially as every fraudulent/try-it-on complaint uses that reason in their template list.

So again miss selling as I was unable to work permanently so therefore being miss lead by three salesmen so surely this has to be a case of miss selling?

What evidence do you have to support your allegation?

A complaint will look at the available evidence. They should have a factfind and suitability report or a statement of demands and needs (depending on when it was sold and what type of distribution channel it was through). The would contain the risk warnings and info about the type of cover being bought and the reasons why it is suitable.

You are alleging the policy was sold as covering all illnesses but the evidence won't support that unless you have something. if it covered all illnesses it wouldnt be called critical illness cover.

[Deleted User]

RufCutRus wrote: »

I have put in a miss selling complaint back in 2012 which is still ongoing today.

How can your complaint have been ongoing for six years?
It was rejected "fully and finally" in 2012 on the basis that the insurance did not cover the condition you went on to develop and that the policy was optional.
Your allegation that what you were sold was described to you as more akin to the comprehensive cover provided by Permanent Health Insurance (PHI) was also rejected because the available evidence indicated otherwise.

Unfortunately, it was PHI you should have purchased - but neither you nor the salesmen could have known the illnesses you would eventually develop.

RufCutRus wrote: »

My next step is to take all the evidence and responses to the Finacial ombudsman.

In your other thread from July you said you already approached the Ombudsman six years back. Sounds like you may no longer have access to the Ombudsman so long after your complaint was rejected.

You were told back in July that time was of the essence.

It is now November and you are still no further advanced?:eek:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5874861/miss-selling-of-critical-illness-cover-it-didn-t-pay-out-when-i-lost-my-sight-so-we-lost-our-home

Doubleo3

In 2001 i got my mortgage, my advisor then moved to a new company and he took all his contacts from llyods and harrassed me to go for a meeting with him, after numerous times I felt pressured into going for a meeting. He kept me there until I signed for critical illness insurance, I had been sold another policy by the same advisor for income protection. Both of these policies woth in a couple of months. He led me to believe that is was a requirement even thou I already had my mortgage.

I cancelled my policy at the begining of this year i thought i had cancelled the two policies after finally cancelling thd second policy. A freidn convinced me that the policy was mis sold, I am
Currently awaiting an outcome from the company who mis sold me the policies. (Sometime this week) I will put an update up once I have read there response. I am assuming that theybwill say it wasnt mis sold upon which i'll be taking this further to the ombudsman.

[Deleted User]

Doubleo3 wrote: »

I am assuming that theywill say it wasnt mis sold upon which i'll be taking this further to the ombudsman.

2001 is pre-regulation, so you won't have access to the Ombudsman.

You also won't get far with a complaint that you were somehow pressured into taking the policy after taking out your mortgage!

Did the two policies you had have significant overlap of cover? I suspect they did not.

dunstonh

2001 is pre-regulation, so you won't have access to the Ombudsman.

If it was a tied agent of an insurer, it will. Its not clear from the post whether it is an independent or tied adviser.

Although the pressure sale approach 17 years after the event is farcical and an easy rejection if they do decide to look at it.

Roythompson

Financial Ombudsman Service condones that it is acceptable for banks to send out confusing and contradictory correspondence to their customers with regard to non advised critical illness policy and then inform the customer about the charges pertaining to advice given by their representative. Has anyone else come across this happening to them.

Bermonia

What now?!?!

julescat

 Because of Coronavirus and the redution in my income as a result I was looking for ways to reduce outgoings. Back in 1999 I was sold critical illness cover by my financial advisor, I think beause I was self employed. Last year the policy company sent a letter to say I may be over insured so during lockdown I decided to find out if I could pay less. This was when I realised that of the 3 policies I had, not all of them kicked in at 12 weeks of sicknes as I thought, one of the policies had a deferral of 6 months and another policiy had a deferral of 12 months, I went mad as there is no way I could afford to live and keep my house with deferrals of 6 and 12 months, I would have been bancrupt if I had ever been ill (13 weeks deferred would have given me £2708 PER YEAR  6 month derferral would have given me £5437 per YEAR adn 12 month deferral would have given me 10,538 per YEAR). The guy I was speaking to said that although the policy was with them, they did not sell it to me but it sounded like I had been mis-sold the policies do you think this is the case. I recall not taking out a policy as soon as I became sick as it was too expensive but the policy that pays out a sum nearer to what I would need does not come into play untill 12 months of critial illness. It was only at this time that I was also made aware that my policy only convered a percentage of my income, not all of it and I have checked my paperwork and there is no mention  that it only relates to a percentage of my income. Do you think I have been mis-sold?

[Deleted User]

No. All this information would have been provided at the time. 

But it's also pre-regulation.