Mis sold life insurance

Irish_B

Hi

We have recently discovered that Life Search who provided us with a quote for life insurance have sent the quote through to Legal & General even though we didn't accept that quote and went with a lesser quote.

We only became aware of this policy when Life Search organised a review of our policies and they could only find three policies on their database.

We have been paying for the additional policy along with our other policies for 10 years.

We have contacted Life Search & Legal & General who are both blaming each other for the error so we then contacted the Financial Ombudsman and supplied them with all documents from a subject access request from both Life Search & Legal & General but they have said that because it is outside of the six year period they can't do anything. Life Search wont release the documents to them due to this. I suspect Legal & General will do the same.

I've tried to find a solicitor who deals with civil litigation to see if they would take it on but have been unsuccessful.

Can anyone advise if there is anything further we can do please?

LightFlare

You might struggle to get any recourse if you have only just noticed that you weren't paying the right amount for 10 years

Woodstok2000

Did you buy both policies through Life Search? Have they provided any evidence of their authorisation to purchase the policy with L&G - you must have provided them with your financial details to enable payment, what did you think you werre buying?

flaneurs_lobster

Assuming this is (was) a joint-life policy (your use of the plural pronoun suggests so) I doubt if you would have complained of mis-selling if the policy had been claimed against.

dunstonh

I've tried to find a solicitor who deals with civil litigation to see if they would take it on but have been unsuccessful.

Time bars would also apply to legal action. The usual limitation act time is six years for breach of contract or for negligence against an advisor broker. Along with a possible three-year date of knowledge extension. So very similar to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Even if we put time bars to one side, there are a couple of major roadblocks that you would have to overcome.

You would have been sent an illustration in the post by the insurer at the point of sale. You would have also been sent it again with the cancellation rights at the point of issue in the policy. You would have also received a letter giving you advance warning of the direct debit date and amount. And finally, you would have been issued with a policy document. Let's also not forget that you've been paying the direct debit and a difference in amount would have surely been recognised by you long before now.

Irish_B

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82030167#Comment_82030167

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82030183#Comment_82030183

No they quoted me on a £60k policy and a £40k policy. I authorised the 40K policy but they sent the quote for the 60K thorough to Legal & General which they shouldn't have done. It took time for them both to even find the policy. They were both saying there was no record of any fourth policy on their system. It was eventually found and they are saying it was taken out on a different date but we havent taken out any other policies at a later date.

MyRealNameToo

The time bar originates from legislation, the Ombudsman has simply decided to mirror the time limits of the courts.

You left it too long basically.

Weighty1

You've said "sent the quote through" a couple of times but this is irrelevant. There must have been an application submitted to get this policy live, so when was it applied for?

If you thought you had 3 policies with L&G then why did you not realise you were paying 4 premiums for 10-years? And how did you not realise that some of the documentation sent out to you mentioned the £60k policy? This is a pretty big stumbling block. I arrange mutliple policies for the same client depending on their needs so to have 3, 4, 5 policies all with the same insurer is not that unusual so you'd be hard pressed to actually prove it was missold anyway and even moreso based on the above points.