Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Former MSE Rebecca
    • By Former MSE Rebecca 21st Apr 15, 9:02 AM
    • 113Posts
    • 96Thanks
    Former MSE Rebecca
    Over 50s Life Insurance Plans Guide Discussion
    • #1
    • 21st Apr 15, 9:02 AM
    Over 50s Life Insurance Plans Guide Discussion 21st Apr 15 at 9:02 AM


    Hi,

    We've written a new Over 50s Life Insurance Plans guide for the website and we'd love your feedback.

    How did you find the info? Was it useful? Do you have any other tips you would add?

    Thanks for your help,

    MSE Rebecca
Page 1
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 21st Apr 15, 11:32 AM
    • 98,597 Posts
    • 66,994 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #2
    • 21st Apr 15, 11:32 AM
    • #2
    • 21st Apr 15, 11:32 AM
    The general "adviser" view is that these plans are an option of last resort. So, the article is certainly in the right direction there.

    However, it does appear to be lacking information on normal underwritten life assurance plans such as level term assurance or whole of life assurance. These are the options people should be looking at before over 50s plan where there is a life assurance need.

    Pre-pay funerals and ISAs are other areas that can also be considered.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
  • Viennalad
    • #3
    • 22nd Apr 15, 8:12 AM
    Not sure MSE is completely right?
    • #3
    • 22nd Apr 15, 8:12 AM
    MSE obviously can't cover all circumstances - but - I'm nearly 68 and have recently (2 months ago) taken out one of these plans - via RIAS (AIG Life Ltd) - inflation linked although I can change this at any time if I want to - took out the plan because - I'm retired on a fixed pension income (enough to live on) - no assets or savings (live in social housing) - and wanted mainly to ensure my sons don't have to pay for a funeral in the next few years - will make other arrangements re funeral costs after this.

    Out of interest I just checked a quote from Shepherds Friendly - their policy is similar to mine (but they don't give an inflation option) - and their pay out in the event of valid claim would be 12% less on the same premium - that's a lot and certainly not a 'Best Buy' in my case - presumably all the others listed would be even worse. Or am I missing something?
    • forgotmyname
    • By forgotmyname 22nd Apr 15, 11:28 AM
    • 29,148 Posts
    • 11,961 Thanks
    forgotmyname
    • #4
    • 22nd Apr 15, 11:28 AM
    • #4
    • 22nd Apr 15, 11:28 AM
    My FIL had one and he paid in approx double to what they paid out. Thats the risk. The more sensible option maybe a funeral plan.

    He paid 1800 for a funeral plan with age concern, The funeral would have cost us 3800 when he passed away. I would say thats a much better option than the over 50's plan. You can probably do better than age concern also.

    Even with the top one take it out when your 50 and live to be 90, you will have paid 4800. But you will only receive 1820 back.

    Also the earlier you take the funeral plan the better. Its unlikely to get cheaper over the years.
    Punctuation, Spelling and Grammar will be used sparingly. Due to rising costs of inflation.

    My contribution to MSE. Other contributions will only be used if they cost me nothing.

    Due to me being a tight git.
  • carmel.mason
    • #5
    • 22nd Apr 15, 6:44 PM
    • #5
    • 22nd Apr 15, 6:44 PM
    We have an elderly uncle (will be 85 on 9th October). He took out a policy (without us knowing) with Phoenix (Allianz Cornhill Insurance plc) on 28th August 2002 when he was aged 72 paying 20 per month with an expected pay out of 1,854.00. To date he has paid in well over what he expects to get out. He is on pension credit and every penny counts. 20 is an enormous amount to come out of his budget. Should we cancel the policy and just suffer the loss? He doesn't want to stop paying. Carmel, Tamworth
  • old hippy
    • #6
    • 23rd Apr 15, 5:32 PM
    • #6
    • 23rd Apr 15, 5:32 PM
    we've been paying life ins for 25 years,now we're getting older the amount we pay montly goes up every 5 years . from 20.00 orig now 75.00 up to 125 per month from May.Now on pension can't afford to pay,payout is only 18,000 for joint life .Also too late now to start a new policy.Feel like insurance is one big rip off.Cashing in and get 700 after 25 years !!!
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 23rd Apr 15, 6:03 PM
    • 98,597 Posts
    • 66,994 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #7
    • 23rd Apr 15, 6:03 PM
    • #7
    • 23rd Apr 15, 6:03 PM
    we've been paying life ins for 25 years,now we're getting older the amount we pay montly goes up every 5 years
    If you dont go with guaranteed premiums, then that is always a possibility.

    Feel like insurance is one big rip off.Cashing in and get 700 after 25 years !!!
    Better than being dead and someone else getting the full amount.

    we've been paying life ins for 25 years
    The type of plan you have is woefully out of date. Insurance policies are a bit like many retail products in that better ones can come along and you do need to review them periodically to make sure yours is still suitable. These types of plans became niche about 20 years ago. Maybe too late for you but it may help others reading to remember to check their policies periodically.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • mauvelion
    • By mauvelion 30th Apr 15, 1:05 AM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    mauvelion
    • #8
    • 30th Apr 15, 1:05 AM
    • #8
    • 30th Apr 15, 1:05 AM
    I was just about to cancel my mum's policies - as she has already payed Sun Life over 3000 more than our sum assured,
    BUT,
    I've just noticed that if she were to end her days 'while travelling...in...a motor vehicle', or 'by rail, by road, by air...or...by sea' more money would be received...4 X the sum assured on one policy; 3 X sum assured on the other. which she's about 2000 shy of paying.

    She does need to have been travelling though; is that a reason to keep the policies going? Well, it is, but is it enough of a reason?

    Oh, but not 'if death is [as] a direct or indirect result of...war or hostilities'.

    Is this one big swizz, or not?
    Last edited by mauvelion; 30-04-2015 at 1:19 AM. Reason: New information found
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 30th Apr 15, 7:32 AM
    • 98,597 Posts
    • 66,994 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #9
    • 30th Apr 15, 7:32 AM
    • #9
    • 30th Apr 15, 7:32 AM
    Is this one big swizz, or not?
    The product is not one big swizz. It is a valid product that fills a niche need.

    The marketing of the product on the other hand leaves a lot to be desired. Advisers treat it as an option of last resort. However, the adverts promote it with limited risks disclosed. Supermarkets sell it with leaflets by their checkouts. This marketing makes it look like a normal thing to have.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
  • Louise F
    PhoeniPPPP
    We are in the County Court with Phoenix Life Ltd tomorrow 1.5.15 after a long battle including the ombudsman. ( Ombudsman results - check out their website - last year from January to end of June only 19% of cases awarded in favour of the consumer !!!!) Which is why we are at the disgraceful place of having to drag a 91 year old to court in her wheel chair. I will come back and post the results. My mother never received full policy information ( in her stored paper work she had a policy and paid up certificate 76 years old - but they argue she is a batty old fool who has lost or mislaid their policy! She believed her payments would stop when she reached the target figure she ticked! Because she is very partially sighted the continuing payment came to light only less than 3 years ago when she moved in with my sister. What ever you do - do not stop the payments as it is clear that the policy is then void and you get NOTHING. I can tell you after over 2 years of arguing and with a recorded delivery ultimatum I did on behalf of my mother get a very small compromise - Phoenix agreed to freeze the policy and take no further payments - ( hers is 12 a month) she refused as she had in her view over paid them by over 1000, and this was the complaint and they were still not addressing it. Try this first and bombard them with letters and complaints but I can tell you will have to have tremendous perseverance as they are as slippery as a bag of snakes with continual fob off letters and I cannot say how tomorrow will go, technically we are out of time as Phoenix took the policy over in January 2007 - ( The policy was introduced by B&Q for Cornhill, then sold out first to Britannic and they sold on bulk policies in January 2007 to Phoenix Life Ltd.) but I am asking the judge to look at the matter under the Latent Damage act 1986 - where you have another 3 years to claim if there is a good reason why a mistake or fraud had not been spotted earlier - (my mother has very limited sight in her left eye only and cannot read at all - certainly not her bank statements and she lived independently until age 88) I have written and asked the Deputy District Judge If I can be my mothers McKenzie Friend and also for "power of audience" ( which means to be allowed to speak on the persons behalf - as a lay person, granted in exceptional cases only) Win or lose - you can be sure I will post the results here - I just know there are people out there affected by the same issues - (My mother was already 74 when she took the policy out a s a B&Q Senior Member - you have to be 65, so there could be many younger people out there in the same situation still paying into Phoenix's fat greedy pockets! I believe my mother was purposely targeted in a vulnerable trusting older age group, and the very sad thing is mostly this all comes to light when some one has died and then there is nothing at all you can do about it. The amount of letters is so much it will not fit in my brief case - 3 other family members will be in court as witnesses tomorrow as they also have had to help my mother store and file her paper work over the years - now it has become about the principle more than the money and bringing this whole thing into the open. My Mum is looking forward to her day in Court - it might be David and Goliath but her complaint is very well documented. Louise F
  • Louise F
    Quick Reply to Carmel Mason,
    Please see my longer thread discussion, butDON'T cancel the policy with Phoenix life, you will get NOTHING back. They are Robbers morally, and they are liars literally, which I hope to prove in Court tomorrow. But my advice to you is write and tell them about the hard ship involved by continuing this 20 a month payment from a State Pension. Write in strong terms.They did, after a great deal of pressure agree this as a compromise for my mother (to freeze the policy and stop the monthly premiums) - but she refused this offer and decided to fight them the whole way in Court because they have been so deceptive and evasive and for her it became an all or nothing fight. But don't stop the payments. I find it hard to believe that a big Company like Phoenix would actually go to Court over what is to them a very small amount - against the back lash of very negative publicity that this Court Case will give, but that is where we are at! - what ever the out come I will post the results of the County Court Judgement on this thread to keep you up dated. Carmel there will be a lot of other elderly people in the same position - paying money to Phoenix they cannot afford - lets open Pandora's Box and bring it all out into the open. You must fight them, do not be a faceless victim, stand up and be counted and let other people know if you have some success. Louise F
  • Louise F
    PpppppP
    Phoenix Life - Court Results
    The Phoenix Life Ltd Saga - on going from January 2013 to May 1st 2015


    As a result of Mum signing up for a Senior Life policy in 1998, (her details were introduced to an insurance company called Cornhill by B&Q Senior Club Members (over 65 years). She never received any full policy information from anyone after signing, which would have given her the opportunity at the time to have a 15 day cooling off period after looking at all the details. She believed the policy payments would stop once she reached the target amount she had ticked on her application - there was nothing to tell her other wise. She was clear it as not a savings plan and no interest would be earned, and also that the amount was payable on death to her estate. She also understood she could not cancel the policy or she would not receive any payments back. Due to her very limited sight in her left eye only she was unable to read her bank statements and she lived alone and independently until aged 88 years. The monthly premiums were now being paid to Phoenix life who took over her policy (in a bulk transfer in 2007) The fact that payments were still being taken by Phoenix life came to light when Mum moved into her daughter Sheila's and it was calculated that the target figure of 1,208 had been reached along time ago. The oldest sister Pauline, then phoned Phoenix Life and tried to get an explanation and full policy details in January 2013. In all Phoenix were asked 4 times for the full policy details and they were never supplied, one page print outs and copies of the actual application form were supplied on 4 occasions.! The matter was then referred to a Complaints specialist at Phoenix Life who replied quoting a free phone number on the "Key features", again this was not supplied with the letter. We were also told in writing at one point that power of attorney would be required to release more than basic information, despite the fact that Mum herself spoken on the phone requesting that her daughter could act on her behalf, as with two hearing aids it was very difficult to deal with matters on the phone, and with extremely limited sight all post had to be read out to her. Having exhausted the complaints procedure the next step is the Ombudsman, this took from February until November 2014 to go through the system.


    Phoenix Life then supplied Policy information to the Ombudsman that had never been seen by Mum or any of her family, the Ombudsman made a decision based on the flawed information and in his written decision kept referring to the policy details; in fact this was like adding insult to injury, it was saying that Mum had either lost the policy information or had not understood it - either she was a silly old fool or a liar. The Ombudsman's decision was not accepted and the decision to go to the Small Claims Court was now the only way forward ; (or accept being called a fool or a liar, and the slur on your character that is inferred as well as the original complaint being completely over looked) to get to the bottom of the matter and get Phoenix to answer the matter in Court in front of a Judge. To put the Ombudsman system into perspective, you can go onto the website were they are obliged to print all the results ; last year 2014 from January to June, The Ombudsman found in favour of the consumer in only 19% of cases against Phoenix life. I can tell you from this experience that it is a system open to abuse and manipulation; and therefore flawed. Mum decided to have her day in Court.
    Fortunately due to Mum receiving Pension Credits she did not have to pay any court fees which would have been 300 at todays costs. It did take, and had already taken a massive amount of time, letter writing and photocopying and perseverance.


    Phoenix Life did not provide the Legal address which is in Birmingham and consequently all the Court paper work was initially sent to the only known address in Scotland and then returned, wasting another full three weeks in time.


    In Court
    On 1st May 2015 at Tameside Small Claims Court. Mum had to get a disabled taxi to Court as she is no longer able to be transferred from her wheel chair to a normal car. I had written to the Judge and asked to be a Mc Kenzie Friend and also for "Power of Audience" as Mum was now 91, with two hearing aids, partially sighted and had never been to court in her life. In Court were Mum, myself, the sister who cares for her, the youngest sister and gran daughter. Mum did speak briefly to the Judge confirming that I should speak for her. she also told him she had been brought up to be honest and that she took the policy out because she thought a great deal of B&Q, ( the introducers) they seemed to be helpful to older people by taking older people on to work and she had a discount from their club membership. She also told the court that she had struggle to bring up her children and had never had much money and so this 1000, "overpayment" to Phoenix was a great deal of money for her. I was allowed to speak, and also question the solicitor appearing for Phoenix Life. I pointed out that I had already enclosed (as evidence)a copy of a life policy and relating paid up certificate that was 76 years old that had been in my Mothers paper work - if she could keep something intact for 76 years was it likely she had lost policy information that was just 16 years old? The solicitor did under pressure, agree that it was possible that a policy was never sent, mistakes might have been made, and the opportunity to cancel within the cooling off period would then have been denied. He answered that Phoenix Life had no legal obligation to inform a policy holder when they took ownership of the policy. The Limitations Act meant it was out of time to bring a complaint but I asked the Judge to look under the Latent Damage Act of 1986, where more time may be allowed if there are special reasons. The Judge was very experienced and was very nice to my mum making her feel included, he allowed me more or less free rein to speak and air the matter, at the end he said he'd give the last word to me, Ms Frank Junior. He mentioned all the main points in his summing up.
    The Judges summing up and decision
    He mentioned that the Consumer Protection offered now is better for such policies but that he must apply the law as it was in 1998 when the policy was taken out. The limitation period allows 6 years for a complaint to be made in Court. He agreed that Phoenix Life had been slow and procrastinated in dealing with the complaint and that the Ombudsman procedure does takes a long time and that "they take the least line of resistance". He could only apply the law and not punish for poor administration or slowness, he also said the law takes no consideration of fairness. He said he believed that Mum had never received any full policy details. Looking at the matter under the Latent Damage Act, the Judge stated that the total time period would be 15 years and time ran out on 27th September 2013 to the day; exactly on this day. He explained there is a right to appeal but he said the defendants would be very likely to win. (so don't do it)


    Of course without all of the time wasting by Phoenix Life it may have been possible to get to court earlier and meet the dead line, there would still no guarantee of a win, as Judge likes to see that everything has been done to resolve the matter before going to court; ie Complaints Procedure with the company and then potentially Ombudsman. If you did not go through the whole procedure it could also be held against you in court.

    My thoughts and conclusions
    Well of course the law is an !!!, and does not deal in fairness. Thankfully the consumer is better protected today but that does not help any one (and there will be some) people in a similar or same position as my mum. (These policies targeted vulnerable older people who were/are more trusting as a generation, they traded on the name of B&Q giving discounts to their over 65 year old customers) The Ombudsman is a very poor procedure, the published results show in black and white fact that your chances of having your complaint upheld is very small indeed - the system is open to manipulation meaning the Ombudsman's result may not reflect the truth and leave you feeling worse about the situation than you did when you started! (Essentially branded a liar or a fool) Going to Court, well, the Judge will only look at the Legal Facts - nothing more. It can cost you money for fees, take even more time. You will need the tenacity of ten men and the whole experience will leave you exhausted and empty and not a single step forward towards a satisfactory conclusion. Phoenix life are the absolute masters at procrastination, but I still don't feel it is entirely a victory for them. It has cost them money to send a solicitor to court and by publishing this story it perpetuates their very poor public image - In court with a 91 year old lady quite deaf and nearly blind! In a similar situation. I do not believe you will get any money back that you may regard as overpayments unless you are well within the 15 year time constraint of the Latent Damage Act 1986, and you will have to argue very hard for it. Advice - Go for a company that comes recommended - make sure you et the full policy and read the small print - don't agree - cancel it within the cooling off period.
    Last edited by Louise F; 12-05-2015 at 5:25 PM. Reason: updated informationUpdaUUup
  • Louise F
    P
    Carmel - please see my latest information re Phoenix Life in Court posted today 4th may 2015 - with the hindsight of all we have been through; these policies were sold targeting the old and vulnerable without any advice being offered or consideration to their financial position in later life. Morally it is wrong,
    Fight, don't cancel and loose everything.
    Best Wishes Louise
    Last edited by Louise F; 13-05-2015 at 9:45 AM.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 4th May 15, 2:52 PM
    • 98,597 Posts
    • 66,994 Thanks
    dunstonh
    He mentioned that the Consumer Protection offered now is better for such policies but that he must apply the law as it was in 1998 when the policy was taken out. The limitation period allows 6 years for a complaint to be made in Court. He agreed that Phoenix Life had been slow and procrastinated in dealing with the complaint and that the Ombudsman procedure does takes a long time and that "they take the least line of resistance".
    The judge was wrong. The FOS is slightly more consumer biased and takes into account, law, rules and fairness. They dont go for the line of least resistance.

    The Ombudsman is a very poor procedure, the published results show in black and white fact that your chances of having your complaint upheld is very small indeed
    It depends on the reasons for complaint. Life assurance has low levels of complaint and its hard to be mis-sold, so the stats are low for that reason.

    the system is open to manipulation meaning the Ombudsman's result may not reflect the truth and leave you feeling worse about the situation than you did when you started!
    What truth? There are four truths. What you say happened, what the other party say happened, what actually happened and what the evidence suggests happened.

    Going to Court, well, the Judge will only look at the Legal Facts - nothing more.
    Which is why you are less likely to succeed in court than you are with the FOS.

    It has cost them money to send a solicitor to court and by publishing this story it perpetuates their very poor public image
    As a closed book insurer, it doesnt really affect them.

    these policies were sold targeting the old and vulnerable without any advice being offered or consideration to their financial position in later life. Morally it is wrong,
    If you dont use an adviser, you dont get advice. As already mentioned on this thread, advisers are not fans of these plans and treat them as last resort. If you buy without advice, the requirements are much lower and the person is responsible for their own research. I do agree that the way these are marketed had been bad.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • modernmillie
    • By modernmillie 6th May 15, 11:08 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    modernmillie
    Is it legitimate to take out these plans if you have been diagnosed with a terminal illness? I've read the ts&cs, and the MSE guide that says they can be lucrative if you play the odds (and live past the minimum qualifying period of 12 - 24 months), but it just seems a bit too good to be true, and not 'in good faith'.
  • Louise F
    In reply to Dunstonh 0n 4th may at 2.52 - Thank you for your comments, very interesting, but I stand by everything I say. The Ombudsman is a very poor system - A PROVEN FACT - 19% in favour of the consumer against Phoenix Life in the first 6 months of last year proves that! The facts were that the Ombudsman made a decision based on policy information that had never ever been received by the policy holder! but WAS sent on to the Ombudsman. So the system IS open to manipulation and although I do not agree with everything the Judge said, I wonder why you think you have the right to say the Judge was wrong (I mean you were not there were you to hear everything were you?) when he said "the Ombudsman takes the least line of resistance"; that is putting it mildly and is exactly what happened in the case I go into detail about, and all of the correspondence produced in court confirmed that. Your four truths? well what we said happened, happened and was backed up by copious correspondence - evidence, plus four family witnesses in court prepared to swear to the truth. ... A Judge is a Judge for a very good reason, ... and they can read between the lines too. They can usually workout who is telling the truth. I don't agree that Phoenix Life will not be affected by having to defend themselves in Court, I have potentially opened the flood gates for many elderly people to do the same, or threaten the same. There will be hundreds of elderly policy holders, (this was a senior policy targeting the over 65's, my Mum was already 74 when she signed up via a B&Q Flyer in store) in a very similar position, some may not even realise it - so go and dig out your old Mum or Dads or Uncles policies and check - locked into payments at 85 with rising living and care costs? Phoenix will not want to pay to defend themselves and send in a solicitor, it all costs money.Bad publicity will always hurt in the end, because consumers do have a choice. (check out the Review website where there are currently 88 reviews for Phoenix Life with an average of one star)
    Last edited by Louise F; 12-05-2015 at 5:19 PM. Reason: Ph
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 6th May 15, 4:19 PM
    • 98,597 Posts
    • 66,994 Thanks
    dunstonh
    The Ombudsman is a very poor system - A PROVEN FACT - 19% in favour of the consumer against Phoenix Life in the first 6 months of last year proves that!
    The complaints uphold rate proves nothing other than most complaints referred to it about Phoenix are not valid. It doesnt make the ombudsman a poor system. The courts found against you as well remember.

    The facts were that the Ombudsman made a decision based on policy information that had never ever been received by the policy holder!
    That cannot be proven.

    , I wonder why you think you have the right to say the Judge was wrong (I mean you were not there were you to hear everything were you?)
    We were not there but your comments about what the judge said are what we have to go on and if he said that about the ombudsman then he is wrong.

    A Judge is a Judge for a very good reason, ... and they can read between the lines too.
    Yes. And they know witnesses can have poor memory recollection or tell lies. Which is why evidence is most important.

    I don't agree that Phoenix Life will not be affected by having to defend themselves in Court, I have potentially opened the flood gates for many elderly people to do the same, or threaten the same, and at the very least get their monthly premiums stopped.
    They have no reputational issues as they are closed for new business. You lost the case. Had you won it, then maybe that would be different.

    Bad publicity will always hurt in the end, because consumers do have a choice. (check out the Review website where there are currently 88 reviews for Phoenix Life with an average of one star)
    If they were open for business then they may be concerned about that. However, reviews of obsolete or out-of-date products on a closed book are never likely to be favourable.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 12th May 15, 7:01 PM
    • 98,597 Posts
    • 66,994 Thanks
    dunstonh
    MY STATS ON THE FOS ARE FROM THEIR WEB SITE - THEY HAVE TO PUBLISH - THEY ARE NOT MIS READ
    Your interpretation of them is wrong. The statistic is correct.

    ANY ONE CAN CHECK THEM OUT AND 19% in favour of a consumer in any ones eyes but yours is very poor indeed!
    There you go. Your interpretation of a statistic is flawed.

    You need to be removed from this site entirely if you think its fun to wind people up, insult them, call them liars,
    I cannot see any posts that have any such content. No allegations or insults have been made by me. You on the other hand.....

    I posted on here to HELP other people - warn them - not have this ridiculous discussion with you - read back over what you have written and see how ridiculous and petty you are
    I suggest you follow your own advice.
    You cannot just post things on the internet as facts when they are not and expect others to accept them as facts. That is why there is discussion. You should try it some time. It makes contributing to discussion boards much more interesting.

    you are no more than a "wind up merchant"
    To be honest, I am beginning to think that I may be victim to a wind up. This is starting to be very surreal.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
  • David Perry
    Very useful and it has made me think twice as I was tempted to take out such a policy - not so sure now. What should I do, though, in order to prevent my children having to pay for a future funeral? Are there other, better, options?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 21st May 15, 11:25 AM
    • 39,292 Posts
    • 23,249 Thanks
    Quentin
    Pre pay it now. (Though if you don't it will ultimately be paid from your estate, not by your children)
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

29Posts Today

4,382Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Snap post #BBCOurNextPM poll: Who do you think did best. (I had to have two in one category, so I picked randoml? https://t.co/gYTNBBn3SP

  • Emily Maitliss being v mean to Boris using his own past quotes against him on Heathrow, having an election when lea? https://t.co/4baNAlmMid

  • Wow - impressive performance from the 15 year old climate change activist. Not sure I'd have had such confidence when still at school.

  • Follow Martin