In that case something like permanent health insurance or income protection insurance might be a better idea. Many (most?) loan specific repayment protection plans are really bad value for money.What if you become seriously ill and can no longer work? (god forbid)..Who will pay your loan?.
In that case something like permanent health insurance or income protection insurance might be a better idea. Many (most?) loan specific repayment protection plans are really bad value for money.
Well, as with any product or service you have to shop around for the best value for money which suits your specific needs. That goes without saying. But now I have said it too.alot of people say some of the policies can be bad value aswell.
We don't know that the original poster's loan is "significant". It's a gross generalisation to say that anybody who does not take out repayment protection in such circumstances is "mad".I just think anyone who takes out a significant loan without payment protection or some type of income protection is mad in my opinion.
Well, as with any product or service you have to shop around for the best value for money which suits your specific needs. That goes without saying. But now I have said it too.
We don't know that the original poster's loan is "significant". It's a gross generalisation to say that anybody who does not take out repayment protection in such circumstances is "mad".
We don't know that the original poster's loan is "significant". It's a gross generalisation to say that anybody who does not take out repayment protection in such circumstances is "mad".
Well this thread is about the original poster's issue. If you want to discuss loan repayment protection in the abstract then perhaps you should start a new thread.Where did I mention the OP in relation to that point?
I disagree. Not all risks need to be insured for. It's a question of assessing the risk and then deciding whether or not insurance is merited. If the risk of not being able to meet the repayments on a loan is low then it makes no sense to insure for it. If the implications of not being able to meet the repayments on a loan are not serious then likewise.I said "anyone" who doesn't have payment protection or some type of income protection to protect you from being left with a significant amount of money to pay with no means to do so when things go wrong, is mad.
Hi
You should get €1000(?-€11) back. (at least that's how my refund was structured)
The documents you got for your loan will state what sum the payment protection is for the term of the loan, and this is what you get back.
Do it as soon as you can though, before the 30 days are up!!
Nicola
I disagree. Not all risks need to be insured for. It's a question of assessing the risk and then deciding whether or not insurance is merited. If the risk of not being able to meet the repayments on a loan is low then it makes no sense to insure for it. If the implications of not being able to meet the repayments on a loan are not serious then likewise.
In which the person in question has allegedly obtained a nil installment judgement so the whole palaver about debt collectors etc. is moot based on the information posted?Fair enough. Have a look at "Bank harrassing debtor" thread.
For many people the risk of these eventualities may well be low - yes. But it really depends on the individual. And the size of the loan. And so on. Basically it all depends on the individual's circumstances and to assert that insurance for some risk is always advisable without reference to the specific individual's specific circumstances is silly.Oh but whats the chances of you getting sick or having a serious accident - "low" I suppose.
In which the person in question has allegedly obtained a nil installment judgement so the whole palaver about debt collectors etc. is moot based on the information posted?
For many people the risk of these eventualities may well be low - yes. But it really depends on the individual. And the size of the loan. And so on. Basically it all depends on the individual's circumstances and to assert that insurance for some risk is always advisable without reference to the specific individual's specific circumstances is silly.
Of course they do! Some people have specific hereditary or lifestyle health risks that others don't have. Some people are naturally clumsy or accident prone while others are not. And so on... Not all risks are worth insuring for all individuals."Specific circumstances" have nothing to do with you tripping over a shoe and falling down the stairs and doing serious irrepairable damage to themselves
I never said anything about predicting the future. But by asserting that you cannot plan for these you have presumably just consigned the whole actuarial profession to the dustbin?Things you can't plan for or predict.
My approach to insurance involves much less betting and a lot more analysis, assessment and planning based on the relevant circumstances and risks etc.Thats the very nature of insurance - you are betting against something that may never happen. Thats a given, but I'd rather have it and never need then not have it and find I am in situation where I badly need it and I don't have it.
Thats the last I'll say on it.