I am being coerced into taking out Life/Mortgage Insurance

No doubt if lenders took a similarly a la carte approach to loan agreements and which clauses they'd deign to be bound by we'd hear borrowers crying "rip-off". And they would probably be correct too!
 
It is trivial in that the requirement is there to keep things simple for the bank if the mortgage holder dies. It saves them the bother of selling the house.
 
Surely it's also for the benefit of the mortgage holders' next of kin or dependents who would might be saddled with the debt?
 
ClubMan said:
Surely it's also for the benefit of the mortgage holders' next of kin or dependents who would might be saddled with the debt?
Click to expand...

Not in the case being discussed here, but I don't see any harm in a bank looking after their interests (and that of their shareholders etc.) by seeking to recover the full amount of the debt and not the market value, less costs of sale etc. by insisting on insurance.
 
Say in a case where a LA failed to pay due to someone giving inaccurate info, the bank would have to settle for market value?
 
What's your point-that LA is pointless from the lender's point of view becuase it is invalidated when people lie on the proposal form?
 
CCOVICH said:
What's your point-that LA is pointless from the lender's point of view becuase it is invalidated when people lie on the proposal form?
Click to expand...
exactly.

People will lie to get LA soley to obtain a mortgage. Waviers are hard to come by.
 
Not everyone will lie. Even if they do, the lender has nothing to lose by insisting on life assurance. So it's not pointless at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top