Life assurance.

Thirsty said:

sam, that's outrageous!

Dennis may have some better ideas, but I suggest contacting the financial ombudsman for advice if you want to take this further.

Click to expand...

But do take better advice if you ever want to rely on them.

They are a bigger "post code lottery" (for that read "seat-holder" lottery) than the NHS.

deadwood2 said:

Thirsty said:

sam, that's outrageous!

Dennis may have some better ideas, but I suggest contacting the financial ombudsman for advice if you want to take this further.

Click to expand...

But do take better advice if you ever want to rely on them.

They are a bigger "post code lottery" (for that read "seat-holder" lottery) than the NHS.

Click to expand...

They're far from being perfect, admittedly. However, it is a free service, and I can't see that sam could afford to persue this issue through the courts. The Citizens Advice Bureau is another option.

Hi,

I recently took out a mortgage and shopped around for life insurance. The best quote by miles was through the Diabetes UK Website, I submitted my details online and then was contacted by a company called Heath Lambert who asked me some questions and then got full medical records from my doctor.

Hope that helps

Thirsty said:

deadwood2 said:

Thirsty said:

They're far from being perfect, admittedly. However, it is a free service, and I can't see that sam could afford to persue this issue through the courts. The Citizens Advice Bureau is another option.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The FSO free? I don't think so. Free at point of use, admittedly, but at the end of the day they're paid by the industry, so don't expect them to seriously sink their teeth into the hand that feeds them..

deadwood2, perhaps you have some other suggestions that might be helpful?

Sorry, thirsty, but which bit of opining (with the benefit of several years in the industry, and as a claimant) that the FSO isn't exactly the answer to anyone's prayers, isn't helpful?

We don't want to be peddling false hope, do we?

deadwood2 said:

Sorry, thirsty, but which bit of opining (with the benefit of several years in the industry, and as a claimant) that the FSO isn't exactly the answer to anyone's prayers, isn't helpful?

We don't want to be peddling false hope, do we?

Click to expand...

No, we don't. All I'm saying is that if negotiations with the lender have failed to produce a satisfactory outcome, and they have in this case, there aren't too many other routes to take without risking a huge legal bill. There's no harm in trying, is there?

Hi there,

I have life insurance with Tesco. I got it before I was diagnosed and then I told them when I got Type 1. No problems at all and no increase in premium. They might be worth a try.

Hi Lizzie,

Unfortunately your experience with Tesco's won't really help Sam. As you said, you took out the insurance before you were diagnosed as diabetic. At the time you take out life insurance the company looks at your age and any known medical problems at that time, and they decide whether or not to insure you. They take the risk that you might at some later stage develop a critical illness, or you could get hit by a bus and die a week after the policy starts. That is the risk they take when they agree to insure you, and that risk is built into the premiums they charge you. If you do develop a condition, you don't need to tell them because it makes no difference to the policy and they are not allowed to increase your premiums. In fact it would be better if you hadn't told them because they now know that they have a higher risk than when you started the policy. They will have marked your record and may be looking for an opportunity to back out of the agreement at the first opportunity, so if for example you missed a monthly premium or were even late paying it, they could validly claim that your failure to pay a premium on time allows them to cancel your policy.

The important point to remember with life insurance is that the insurer's risk is looked at only once when they agree to insure you. It is not like travel or car insurance, where the policy lasts only for a limited time and then has to be renewed. With renewable policies, the insurer re-assesses the risk each time and can increase or decrease the premiums according to the new risk.

Thirsty said:

No, we don't. All I'm saying is that if negotiations with the lender have failed to produce a satisfactory outcome, and they have in this case, there aren't too many other routes to take without risking a huge legal bill. There's no harm in trying, is there?

Click to expand...

Well, possibly not, provided you accept that they don't really do immediate intervention, you have to exhaust the miscreant's complaints procedure before you can go to them, you are unlikely to get a response in the sort of timescales that will alter the outcome of the present altercation, and whatever you do get is likely to be biased in favour of the lender rather than the borrower.

It's pretty ****, but I didn't design it and I don't market it. Hey ho.

Can anyone else do better? I don't know to be honest - the CAB can do immediate intervention, apparently, but with a GOK how long waiting list, and one suspects that the knitting wool gets on the way of serious debate. Lawyers doing pro-bono?

Helping mere mortals stand up to monolithic corporations with p*ss poor ethical standards and worse customer service is something that we in the UK do exceptionally badly, despite all the H&B and government (our) money thrown in the general direction of thisCOM, thatWAT, Ombudsman the other and all the rest. It's all about putting the acceptable face of new social protectionism on the most corrupt and capitalist organisations and convincing those ripped off that "best practice has been followed".

Sorry, thirsty, but it winds me up a bit!

Thanks Dennis. Oh dear. Should have kept my trap shut. Sigh.

No problem, deadwood. I suppose the only other realistic option is the small claims court, which is intended to make legal action accessible for those without too much spare cash. It still takes ages to get a result and can prove costly if you lose, as well as being quite a stressful procedure. On the brighter side, the courts do tend to find for the little guy whenever they can; at least, they did during my banking days.

You can draw your own conclusions as to the reasons why I left. :wink:

Hi Lizzie,

Not to worry, its a trap that many fall into. The golden rule is if you have to renew the insurance each year then you need to tell them of any changes to your health (e.g. car insurance, travel insurance). If you don't renew each year (e.g. life insurance, unemployment insurance, personal accident/health insurance) then don't tell them about your health situation.

So REALLY the moral of the story is to get a whole of life policy (with NO reviews) as young as possible. I think the industry is trying to phase these out (probably because they arent as profitable!)

just think a 21yo with no 'pre'existing' conditions as they term it, with a 6quid a month policy, goes on to develop a whole array of conditions and eventually claims at age 50, theyve made a bit of a loss there!

It would seem the life assurance industry is moving towards the same business model as the travel insurance (NOT A GOOD MOVE!) pile it high and sell it cheap (but no sickness please) hmph.

benjamingig: got it in one! insure (technically, assure) early, make sure that the assurer has limited scope to wriggle as you get on a bit and don't switch. In some cases, it's one of the few things worth over providing at 21 and having it "just in case" and assigning it as required in later life.

One thing explains why costs increase with age, well two really. Assurance is about paying out about an assured event - you will die eventually. Car insurance, by comparison, is about something paying out for something that may never happen (respectably gambling). Also, unless the stats have changed dramatically recently, the "100 man story" is pretty much a truism, and it's about paying out in every case.

The first part of that story says that of every 100 school leavers aged 16, 25 will have died before retirement. It stands to reason that if you're half way or more to retirement and still living, you've statistically more chance of dieing than your younger mates. Add a chronic disease, and and you'll send underwriters scurrying for cover faster than Jacko's doctor...

thirsty: furrynuff; you probably know all this!.

Hi Dave,

I think the 100 man story is still valid and is one of many that actuaries like to bore people with at parties! One of my favourites is how old do you have to be before your chance of not seeing your next birthday is greater than your chance of still being around for your next birthday? Most people guess somewhere in the 70s, but the answer is . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97!!