Mis-sold Life assurance?

iamguyster

Hi,

When I first bought a home about 15 years ago, I signed up to life assurance, with critical illness cover. I had continued to pay this, even after having sold my home and moving into a rental. That was my fault as I should have considered cancelling it when I moved to a rental property and sold my house.

However, In 2011, I looked at the insurance documents and realised that I seemed to have something protecting my mortgage whilst not actually having a mortgage so I called them up to clarify. I can't actually remember the substance of the phone call but was clearly convinced by the company to continue with some kind of insurance. What I do recall, is thinking that this new insurance was simply to pay out a sum in case of death or critical illness.

Now, I am looking to buy a house and have taken another look at these documents and noticed this "The benefit aims to repay the outstanding balance of a repayment mortgage or loan as long as the interest rate does not go above 10%"

I feel had I seen this I would have raised an issue and wonder had I been convinced that this was just terminology and in fact the amount is payable regardless. Like I said, I can't remember the substance of my call to them.

Have I a valid case for having been mis-sold this? I will have been clear that I didn't have a mortgage as that will have been the exact reason I called them to change it back in 2011.

I have been paying £14/month for for 7 years for effectively nothing from what I can see.

Thanks for any advice.

Guy

Weighty1

All decreasing term policies will include wording to this effect. The premise of this is that it means if interest rates fluctuate then a mortgage will still be fully paid off as long as the average interest rate paid at the point of claim hasn't exceeded the 10%.

It wouldn't have impacted your ability to claim if you didn't have a mortgage. The payout would simply have been based on an imaginary mortgage with a mortgage interest rate of 10%.

csgohan4

When you sold the house did you not re evaluate the life assurance policy and seeing if you still needed it?

It!!!8217;s not the insurers fault that you decided to sell. Also didn!!!8217;t you read th T and C before agreeing?

Life assurance covers a certain amount, usually the mortgage amount but can be anything you want if can pay.

What do you want in return? You got cover during the years you had a mortgage, you failed to evaluate the need when life changes came round.

dunstonh

Have I a valid case for having been mis-sold this?

none whatsoever.

I will have been clear that I didn't have a mortgage as that will have been the exact reason I called them to change it back in 2011.

Decreasing term assurance plans are used for more purposes than just covering repayment mortgages. However, they all have this wording.

iamguyster

Thanks for the non-aggressive response (dunstonh and Weighty1)

csgohan4. I made it clear that not re-evaluating it was my own fault. The reason for my query was I will surely have read the T&Cs and surely have raised questions but years on seemed to have something that was linked to a mortgage and therefore felt that maybe I was 'convinced' by the insurance company to buy something that was actually of no use to me. This is entirely due to me not having any recollection of the actual conversation. Also, at the time, I was in a lot of debt and trying to sort things out, so actually fairly vulnerable.

As it turns out, the feedback from the more level headed responses suggest that I will have been advised correctly and in fact the wording that uses the term 'mortgage' is irrelevant and I haven't been mis-sold as the policy was in fact valid regardless of my status as an owner/renter.

Thanks for the responses