Insurance cancelled after I've paid the prmiums?

Davy_Jones_II

These complaints are ridiculous. You but a one-year policy, you get one year of cover, and that’s that.

Just as the insurance company has no way to force you to buy a policy next year, neither can you force them to sell another one.

SonOf

johne53 wrote: »

dawnriser - in the financial services industry, loyalty, decency and even contracts are all just there to be ignored and exploited. Earlier, I described how I once spent decades paying into an endowment scheme. Then (just one month before it was due to end) the endowment provider told me that they'd be reducing my payout by applying something called a Market Value Reduction. I spent weeks reading through the contract and every document I'd ever received from them - but there wasn't a single word anywhere about Market Value Reductions.

I complained to the regulator and even the regulator agreed that the provider had no documentary justification for applying the MVR - but the regulator found in their favour on the basis that Market Value Reductions were "now commonplace" in the industry. In other words, if it becomes "commonplace" for finance companies to cheat their customers, that's somehow deemed as legitimizing the practice.

The regulator does not review consumer complaints. It was probably the FOS that you are referring to.

MVRs have been commonplace for the last 20 years and existed in the T&Cs for another 15-20 years before that. They cannot be charged unless the contract allows it. MVRs are not charged on maturity. They are charged on early surrender.

johne53

SonOf wrote: »

MVRs have been commonplace for the last 20 years and existed in the T&Cs for another 15-20 years before that. They cannot be charged unless the contract allows it. MVRs are not charged on maturity. They are charged on early surrender.

Yes, that's precisely why I made my complaint. I wasn't surrendering early and their letter (one month before maturity) was literally the first time they'd ever mentioned anything about the MVR. And it's not as if it was some small token amount - I ended up losing around 25% of the expected maturity value.

Weighty1

johne53 wrote: »

Yes, that's precisely why I made my complaint. I wasn't surrendering early and their letter (one month before maturity) was literally the first time they'd ever mentioned anything about the MVR. And it's not as if it was some small token amount - I ended up losing around 25% of the expected maturity value.

Yet STILL the FOS didn't find in your favour? Hmmm, don't you think that may be because there was no wrongdoing then?

johne53

Strictly speaking it wasn't the FOS. It was whoever preceded them (the FSA??) They actually agreed that the endowment provider had no contractual entitlement to apply an MVR - but they allowed it because MVR's were "now commonplace" within the industry.


A relative of mine was mis-sold some insurance product but it wasn't sold by one of the main banks. It was all done through a broker. He complained to the broker who were still trading under the same name and from exactly the same address - and yet they managed to get out of it by claiming they were no longer the same company!!

Weighty1

johne53 wrote: »

Strictly speaking it wasn't the FOS. It was whoever preceded them (the FSA??) They actually agreed that the endowment provider had no contractual entitlement to apply an MVR - but they allowed it because MVR's were "now commonplace" within the industry.

BULL!!!!

Sorry, I don't for one second believe that whichever arbitration body it was simply allowed L&G to apply an MVR because it was commonplace. Quite frankly, it sounds like you are either making things up or aren't remembering what happened clearly.

johne53

I'm not mis-remembering and I'm certainly not making it up. When I dealt with them I got the distinct impression that their primary concern was to protect the industry rather than its customers. So if someone approached them with a highly unusual claim there'd be a reasonable prospect of pursuing it successfully - but if you approached them with a claim which could potentially open the flood gates to other claimants, you had absolutely no chance. The actual merits of a person's claim meant absolutely nothing to them.


I can't entirely remember if it was the FSA or some other authority - but it was whoever preceded the FCA. They had an appalling reputation (which is why it all ended up getting replaced by the FCA and FOS).

David_Fraser

I to have been paying in to RAC. hospital income plan (Cigna) for 35 years, Aprox. £10,000.
Now age 77 & my Wife 75 I am told I am no longer going to be covered from April 2020. From what I have read most people on this plan took it out in the 80s and Cigna have realised that us pensioners are likely to be making a few claims now so lets get rid of them.

johne53

Just been watching an interesting TV programme about the various Ombudsman services.... Apparently there are a couple of dozen (covering various industry sectors) but only the Pensions ombudsman, Financial Services ombudsman and the Legal Services ombudsman have any actual legal authority. All the others (Public Services ombudsman / Rail ombudsman / Health Services ombudsman etc) literally don't have any enforceable powers.


You couldn't make it up....