Maximus152
Registered User
- Messages
- 173
Sumatra, I see your point, maybe North can clear the confusion.
I was made redundant in 2007 and went to claim on my Mortgage Protection Insurance, taken out with one of the main banks. I had to provide lots of back up information and fill in forms which to be honest was fine and to be expected. I knew the mortgage wouldnt be covered for the first month anyway.
On the second month of unempoyment, I received a letter from a UK based firm which was now responsible for the insurance and they bascially asked for an updated copy of all the paperwork again which meant more of the same forms to be filled in. I gave up at that point and fortunately got employment two weeks later.
I'm neither for or against this type of insurance, its a personal choice. Im relating my experience and my own impatience with repetitive form filling.
On the second month of unempoyment, I received a letter from a UK based firm which was now responsible for the insurance and they bascially asked for an updated copy of all the paperwork again which meant more of the same forms to be filled in. I gave up at that point and fortunately got employment two weeks later.
I'm neither for or against this type of insurance, its a personal choice. Im relating my experience and my own impatience with repetitive form filling.
Maximus152
Registered User
- Messages
- 173
Lomond, wow, thats just amazing, when you need them they run for the hills basically. And how much does this indulgence cost per month (as I never have taken it out) roughly... it seems like a complete Jolly to me, hey maybe I can start up my own Firm... lol..
Maximus152
Maximus152
I tried to defend the vague terms and conditions Mortgage repayment protection? Where did I do this, I’m not defending anything, I’m only saying how I interpret the product. Your just attacking what I am saying and trying to skewer what I say to push your own agenda (are you a jornalist).
The way you are talking about this product you would think there is 100% non payouts of claims (the glass is always half empty eh . . ).
This policy is not for you if you have prior knowledge of an Illness or possible redundancy. Simple as that.
You are the one who's constantly making assumptions based on your views of whats happened in the UK, based on your ignorance on the Financial Ombudsman and on little or no research of the product (maybe you are a T.D!
).You are the one demanding Statistics (without offering any yourself), which are not available (and I never pretended to have any).
I have the agency to sell a product that I am not completely satisfied with (partially because of T&C's and partially because of lack of statistics). Why do I mention it to clients? Because I am an advisor and an educator, I educate clients and let them make their own minds up on products. I am not particularly enthralled with some of the penalties put on life assurance policies , fees involved in pensions or investments or how mortgage applications are processed (and decided on) but then again we can’t all be happy with everything we do in our jobs. If I was to choose not to advise on a product that I wasn’t 100% completely happy with, I would be looking for a different job!! Once I disclose all information available on a spcific policy (warts and all), I feel I am doing my job competently and in the clients best interests.
Wonder if people in shops are happy selling cigarettes knowing that this product could kill somebody, or do they just think that people make their own educated personal decisions based on the information they have. As professionals we can only work with the information we have to hand. I know that there have been claims paidout on this policy and that my industry endorses it. If I was to wait for everything to be perfect & show little trust to my industry, then in good conscience (I have one of them actually!) I wouldnt have anything to advise on.
I clearly highlight the Con's of this policy, including the TOC's. I believe that the Financial Ombudsman (the fellow you confuse with the Financial Regulator) will protect a client’s best interest and their rights. If I didn’t trust him, how could I sell any financial products (if I thought clients could be screwed left, right, and centre). The financial Ombudsman got 5947 complaints last year and sided with 62% of the settled complaints going in the complainants favour. This is one statistic that makes me confident that clients will be looked after.
I believe in educating people on services and letting them make up their own mind. People do need protection in their lives, but just as importantly they need to be educated on the services available to them and be allowed to make up their own minds.
What do you think will happen if one of my clients who I meet regularly for financial reviews, loses their job and then finds out about this Mortgage Repayment protection policy and I didnt advise them to consider taking it out . . . Apart from getting a rollicking for not at least mentioning the product I could be sued for not advising clients appropriately and could receive serious penalties from the FR. But sure I didn’t have any statistics on the product so I should just assume it’s a dud and sure the financial ombudsman (that regulates my industry) won’t really care!!!
I don’t mind being probed on any product I sell, nor do I mind having good debates on the merits of each service I provide. Your mind was made up long ago that you choose to assume the worst in this industry and the worst in people (ie people like me obviously just scrambling for commission at the expense of my clients). Funnily enough, for somebody who is demanding statistics, you don’t seem to be offering many to back up your own cheap cynical pop shots. Im not endorsing this as the "perfect product" but do think there is a market for it for people who understand its limitations and confidently believe they fit the bill to avail of this cover.
Well said Northdrum. My brothers friend recently availed of the pay out on this type of cover after losing his job. Yes, it took a good few weeks for paperwork to be completed but still...he's in better situation now having chosen to take this cover than not.
In a previous life I sold personal loans and the loan protection that goes with it. I could easily identify customers where it was suitable or unsuitable unsuitable and genuinely advised the customer of the benefits and pitfalls. It was expensive and not for everyone but for those who claimed successfully, it was a godsend.
Having said that, I wouldnt avail of payment protection on a loan BUT I have taken out redundancy insurance.
In a previous life I sold personal loans and the loan protection that goes with it. I could easily identify customers where it was suitable or unsuitable unsuitable and genuinely advised the customer of the benefits and pitfalls. It was expensive and not for everyone but for those who claimed successfully, it was a godsend.
Having said that, I wouldnt avail of payment protection on a loan BUT I have taken out redundancy insurance.
"This policy is not for you if you have prior knowledge of an Illness or possible redundancy. Simple as that."
Of course, we know the basic principal of any insurance contract is that the happening of the event must be entirely fortuitous as far as the insured is concerned. But the person buying the policy isn't made aware of this?
"You are the one demanding Statistics (without offering any yourself)"
I think the question first asked was worded carefully to read "actual verifiable statistics". No I couldn't get them. I wanted them because of the poor track record on claims npayments in the UK and I wanted to see if Ireland was any different.
"Once I disclose all information available on a spcific policy (warts and all),
My point. On these policies there isn't a full disclosure required at the time of taking out the policy. One could say they are only underwritten at claim stage.
"This policy is not for you if you have prior knowledge of an Illness or possible redundancy. Simple as that. "
Timing is everything. For max return they launched this product for broker distribution as soon as the economy turned. The marketing I've seen even in places encourages people to switch from another MRP (taken out when times were better and when the applicant couldn't have had prior knowledge of redundancy) to this new one. This is a crazy situation.
"I have the agency to sell a product that I am not completely satisfied with "
You can still have an agency and choose not to sell the product.
"Once I disclose all information available on a spcific policy (warts and all)"
So you haven't sold any? or are the only buyers the "one or two of them wanted to "take a punt"?
"I know that there have been claims paidout on this policy and that my industry endorses it."
Isn't PIBA is a representative body? Who are you talking about?
"What do you think will happen if one of my clients who I meet regularly for financial reviews, loses their job and then finds out about this Mortgage Repayment protection policy "
I'd say you'd have adequate records in your fact find to show why you didn't recommend it.
"Your mind was made up long ago that you choose to assume the worst in this industry "
Not quite. I investigated the policy fully, understood the terms and conditions and the claims process then I formed my opinion.
"and the worst in people"
Not at all. I know a few I would trust to look after my family affairs should the worst happen.
Of course, we know the basic principal of any insurance contract is that the happening of the event must be entirely fortuitous as far as the insured is concerned. But the person buying the policy isn't made aware of this?
"You are the one demanding Statistics (without offering any yourself)"
I think the question first asked was worded carefully to read "actual verifiable statistics". No I couldn't get them. I wanted them because of the poor track record on claims npayments in the UK and I wanted to see if Ireland was any different.
"Once I disclose all information available on a spcific policy (warts and all),
My point. On these policies there isn't a full disclosure required at the time of taking out the policy. One could say they are only underwritten at claim stage.
"This policy is not for you if you have prior knowledge of an Illness or possible redundancy. Simple as that. "
Timing is everything. For max return they launched this product for broker distribution as soon as the economy turned. The marketing I've seen even in places encourages people to switch from another MRP (taken out when times were better and when the applicant couldn't have had prior knowledge of redundancy) to this new one. This is a crazy situation.
"I have the agency to sell a product that I am not completely satisfied with "
You can still have an agency and choose not to sell the product.
"Once I disclose all information available on a spcific policy (warts and all)"
So you haven't sold any? or are the only buyers the "one or two of them wanted to "take a punt"?
"I know that there have been claims paidout on this policy and that my industry endorses it."
Isn't PIBA is a representative body? Who are you talking about?
"What do you think will happen if one of my clients who I meet regularly for financial reviews, loses their job and then finds out about this Mortgage Repayment protection policy "
I'd say you'd have adequate records in your fact find to show why you didn't recommend it.
"Your mind was made up long ago that you choose to assume the worst in this industry "
Not quite. I investigated the policy fully, understood the terms and conditions and the claims process then I formed my opinion.
"and the worst in people"
Not at all. I know a few I would trust to look after my family affairs should the worst happen.
Sumatra, there isnt much point in having this discussion. You are simply cherry picking parts of my post and skewering them towards your own warped opinion of the industry I work in.
For anybody reading this, please read my Whole posts before judging what I say and what I am actually saying.
Most of your points appear to be suggesting that most financial advisors (myself included) do not disclose all information for clients to make an informed decision on this product.
You investigated the policy fully, well why not publish your findings, instead of just saying what you think and looking for holes in what I am trying to say . . If you cant get any verifiable statistics, then how could you Fully investigate the product fairly? I suppose we will just have to take your very cynical word for it that you did a fair and balanced analysis . .
This policy is certainly timed rightly but this sort of cover (redundancy) has been around a long time in differant forms (loans , credit cards etc). Wow, an industry that brings out products when demand is high for them, crazy for that to happen in a capitalistic society, no other industry does this!!!
Yes there is a market for Advisors to exploit peoples insecurities, like in any industry there are always people looking to play on peoples fears. Im not going to even attempt to try to get you to believe that I am not one of them as my clients are happy with my service and that is all that matters.
Whats the point in having an agency for a product I dont want to sell?. Like I said (and you conveniently ignore) there are clients to which this product fits, but they probobley werent part of your major investigation. Afterall who wants to hear about people that actually received benefits paid out (some posting in this thread).
Some of your other points only further highlight your ignorance on this topic and your inability to see beyond what you want to believe. You are absolute on your opinion of this policy and on practises of the people in my industry (you have made that clear). I dont really feel there is much more to discuss on this product. Perhaps you should open a new thread to vent your prejudices (based on your non statistical but very lengthy investigations) on other topics that really get your goat . .
For anybody reading this, please read my Whole posts before judging what I say and what I am actually saying.
Most of your points appear to be suggesting that most financial advisors (myself included) do not disclose all information for clients to make an informed decision on this product.
You investigated the policy fully, well why not publish your findings, instead of just saying what you think and looking for holes in what I am trying to say . . If you cant get any verifiable statistics, then how could you Fully investigate the product fairly? I suppose we will just have to take your very cynical word for it that you did a fair and balanced analysis . .
This policy is certainly timed rightly but this sort of cover (redundancy) has been around a long time in differant forms (loans , credit cards etc). Wow, an industry that brings out products when demand is high for them, crazy for that to happen in a capitalistic society, no other industry does this!!!
Yes there is a market for Advisors to exploit peoples insecurities, like in any industry there are always people looking to play on peoples fears. Im not going to even attempt to try to get you to believe that I am not one of them as my clients are happy with my service and that is all that matters.
Whats the point in having an agency for a product I dont want to sell?. Like I said (and you conveniently ignore) there are clients to which this product fits, but they probobley werent part of your major investigation. Afterall who wants to hear about people that actually received benefits paid out (some posting in this thread).
Some of your other points only further highlight your ignorance on this topic and your inability to see beyond what you want to believe. You are absolute on your opinion of this policy and on practises of the people in my industry (you have made that clear). I dont really feel there is much more to discuss on this product. Perhaps you should open a new thread to vent your prejudices (based on your non statistical but very lengthy investigations) on other topics that really get your goat . .
Right back at you . . . That's Fine with me . .
Sober Lark
Registered User
- Messages
- 14
Information on the subject of mortgage repayment protection:
"We have conducted a review of the Mortgage Repayment Protector scheme with Cardif Pinnacle.
As expected there is a large increase in the premium rates from €4.75 per €100 cover to:
€5.59 per €100 for new mortgage cover
or
€6.53 per €100 for "existing" loan cover
These increases were inevitable given that pricing was based on 5% unemployment rates and compulsory redundancy claims have quadrupled over the last 12 months. Other such schemes, if they have not repriced already, are likely to follow suit in the coming months.
Note: as Mortgage Repayment Protector is a non-life monthly renewed product, repricing applies to new and existing clients.
Cardif Pinnacle will send you formal notice of when these changes will come into effect, over the next few weeks. This notice will include a list of your clients, their new premiums, a copy of the letter that will be sent to your clients, and the effective date of these changes. All customers will be given 30 days notice of these changes. Until this time, all policy documents and prices will remain the same.
When discussing new MRP business opportunities with your clients, please bear in mind the increases that are coming on stream and advise your clients that the policy will be amended and the increase is in place.
There will also be some amendments to the policy document initial exclusion periods which will also be communicated to you at this time. The microsite will be updated to reflect the policy amendments and the price increases when they are in place.
On a more positive note the commission has been standardised at 25% for all products."
"We have conducted a review of the Mortgage Repayment Protector scheme with Cardif Pinnacle.
As expected there is a large increase in the premium rates from €4.75 per €100 cover to:
€5.59 per €100 for new mortgage cover
or
€6.53 per €100 for "existing" loan cover
These increases were inevitable given that pricing was based on 5% unemployment rates and compulsory redundancy claims have quadrupled over the last 12 months. Other such schemes, if they have not repriced already, are likely to follow suit in the coming months.
Note: as Mortgage Repayment Protector is a non-life monthly renewed product, repricing applies to new and existing clients.
Cardif Pinnacle will send you formal notice of when these changes will come into effect, over the next few weeks. This notice will include a list of your clients, their new premiums, a copy of the letter that will be sent to your clients, and the effective date of these changes. All customers will be given 30 days notice of these changes. Until this time, all policy documents and prices will remain the same.
When discussing new MRP business opportunities with your clients, please bear in mind the increases that are coming on stream and advise your clients that the policy will be amended and the increase is in place.
There will also be some amendments to the policy document initial exclusion periods which will also be communicated to you at this time. The microsite will be updated to reflect the policy amendments and the price increases when they are in place.
On a more positive note the commission has been standardised at 25% for all products."
Re: Mortgage Repayment Protection Insurance
Results of excellent financial journalism and follow up by the regulator and involvement of PIBA. One can only be pleased with the "If you use the PIBA Cardiff Pinacle Scheme they have introduced upfront underwriting".
The Financial Regulator recently published its findings from its examination of claims handling for Payment Protection Insurance policies. This examination was conducted as it was considered that due to the current economic environment, there may be an increase in claims on these policies. The themed inspections involved an onsite examination by the Financial Regulator of the largest firms, in relation to the claims handling processes on PPI policies, and their compliance with the Consumer Protection Code.
I have highlighted some of the recommendations which were raised as a result of the findings of these inspections.
· Sellers of these products should ensure that the relevant exclusions, together with qualifying periods at the start of policies, are highlighted to the consumer at the point of sale.
· Sellers of regular premium PPI products must be aware that premiums for these policies are not necessarily fixed and may increase. As this may affect whether the consumer can afford the premiums in the subsequent years, this should be highlighted in any product sales material at the point of sale.
· The present practice across the PPI industry is that, unlike, for example, life assurance policies, firms do not gather information from customers on their state of health or medical history. This information is analysed at the time of a claim being assessed. Members should ensure that this practice, and its consequences in relation to claims handling, are fully explained to consumers at point of sale. Please note: If you use the PIBA Cardiff Pinacle Scheme they have introduced upfront underwriting.
· Firms should endeavour to ensure that consumers are not disadvantaged due to excessive delays on the part of third parties in supplying claim related information.
The Findings emphasize the importance of highlighting to consumers at the point of sale that these policies can have exclusions from claims, for example where the individual is made unemployed within a certain period of taking out the policy or where there may have been a pre-existing illnesses. It is therefore important that people read the documentation provided to them at the point of sale. Advisors must ensure that clients understand the product before committing to a purchase.
Results of excellent financial journalism and follow up by the regulator and involvement of PIBA. One can only be pleased with the "If you use the PIBA Cardiff Pinacle Scheme they have introduced upfront underwriting".
The Financial Regulator recently published its findings from its examination of claims handling for Payment Protection Insurance policies. This examination was conducted as it was considered that due to the current economic environment, there may be an increase in claims on these policies. The themed inspections involved an onsite examination by the Financial Regulator of the largest firms, in relation to the claims handling processes on PPI policies, and their compliance with the Consumer Protection Code.
I have highlighted some of the recommendations which were raised as a result of the findings of these inspections.
· Sellers of these products should ensure that the relevant exclusions, together with qualifying periods at the start of policies, are highlighted to the consumer at the point of sale.
· Sellers of regular premium PPI products must be aware that premiums for these policies are not necessarily fixed and may increase. As this may affect whether the consumer can afford the premiums in the subsequent years, this should be highlighted in any product sales material at the point of sale.
· The present practice across the PPI industry is that, unlike, for example, life assurance policies, firms do not gather information from customers on their state of health or medical history. This information is analysed at the time of a claim being assessed. Members should ensure that this practice, and its consequences in relation to claims handling, are fully explained to consumers at point of sale. Please note: If you use the PIBA Cardiff Pinacle Scheme they have introduced upfront underwriting.
· Firms should endeavour to ensure that consumers are not disadvantaged due to excessive delays on the part of third parties in supplying claim related information.
The Findings emphasize the importance of highlighting to consumers at the point of sale that these policies can have exclusions from claims, for example where the individual is made unemployed within a certain period of taking out the policy or where there may have been a pre-existing illnesses. It is therefore important that people read the documentation provided to them at the point of sale. Advisors must ensure that clients understand the product before committing to a purchase.