Tweet
I purchased what I thought was insurance to cover me for accident, sickness and unemployment with my mortgage with LBS in 1999. I was self-employed at the time I purchased the policy. LBS issued me with a Schedule entitled 'schedule of personal details in respect of cover provided under the Master Certificate number xxxxxxxx issued to the Socitey by the Insurer, Norwich Union Insurance Limited' that specified Basis of Cover 'Accident, Sickness and Unemployment'.
Despite the policy covering the self-employed it stated the following two exclusions under "We will not pay benefit for the following:"
"Unemployment which is normal, regular or seasonal in Your Work"
"Unemployment which We beleive You were aware of at the Start Date, whether You had official notice or not."
Therefore, given I work as an IT Contractor and had a contract at the time that had a start and end date on it, I would not have been able to make a successful claim as I was aware of unemployment.
I recently had my PPI complaint rejected by LBS because they said I had only paid for Accident & Sickness cover indicated by the mortgage statement that I sent them that specified teh premium I had paid and not Accident, Sickness and Unemployment cover as was stated on the Insurance documentation I received from LBS. After I pointed this out to them, they responded telling me that "it appears that when the certificate of insurance was produced, an admin error caused for an additional line of text to be erroneously displayed; for this I apologise."
They like all the others immediately stated that they had NO documentation dating back to that period (because of DPA of course, not because it suits them NOT to have it, in case you submit a SAR) and sent me what they referred to as examples of documentation that would have been sent. I subsequently responded with the actual copies of all of the documentation I had kept including the insurance certificate, the policy document and statements showing premiums.
I also immediately referred my complaint to the FOS providing the insurance schedule and confirmed to them that at no point since I purchased the insurance and received the policy documentation, had LBS ever issued with me with any further documentation notifying me of any errors. Neither did they ever issue me with a revised certificate of insurance schedule document or a wrtitten change notice stating that the Basis of Cover was 'Accident & Sickness' only. Therefore, my claim is that until now I thought I had purchased Accident, Sickness and Unemployment insurance cover, paid my premiums for the duration of my mortgage, was issued with a certificate of insurance confirming my cover and as such I should be entitled to a refund of my premiums.
The LBS are currently standing by their excuse that as I hadn't actually paid for the Accident, Sickness and Unemployment cover, therefore being self-employment has no bearing.
It gets better. On the insurance certificate it also includes a fee free period of 12 months that I never received either. So despite rejecting my PPI claim, they gave me a cheque for 3 months of the fee-free period and not 12 months as stated on the insurance certificate. Worth noting that I clearly didnt understand either the limitations or incentives that I had purchased at the time. However, this experience has resulted in my growing eyes since 1999 and I now read the details of what I purchase before I commit to buy.
Do I have a case for refund on the basis of the above or is a certificate of insurance issued to a customer an irelevant document? Does ICOBS in the FCA Handbook provide rules and guidance to banks and bulding societies that mean that they must correctly specify what you have purchased from them and if they do make 'admin errors', ensurr that they formally and proactively correct them before it's too late. Not that I would have ever been able to make a successful claim any way given I was self-employed, but it would have been a hell of sticky situation for me to have found all of this out at the time had I tried to make a claim on the policy for unemployment - a double whammy - 'sorry you don't actually have the cover you thought you had purchased and even if you did, exclusions apply and you're not eligible for the benefit'. They make sure you're stuffed then and now!
I would love to see some data from some of these banks and building societies that show how many self-employed people made successful unemployment claims on these policies. This data must have surfaced at some stage back in 2005, when the FCA investigated the scandal. I doubt it was many if any.
Regards
G
Despite the policy covering the self-employed it stated the following two exclusions under "We will not pay benefit for the following:"
"Unemployment which is normal, regular or seasonal in Your Work"
"Unemployment which We beleive You were aware of at the Start Date, whether You had official notice or not."
Therefore, given I work as an IT Contractor and had a contract at the time that had a start and end date on it, I would not have been able to make a successful claim as I was aware of unemployment.
I recently had my PPI complaint rejected by LBS because they said I had only paid for Accident & Sickness cover indicated by the mortgage statement that I sent them that specified teh premium I had paid and not Accident, Sickness and Unemployment cover as was stated on the Insurance documentation I received from LBS. After I pointed this out to them, they responded telling me that "it appears that when the certificate of insurance was produced, an admin error caused for an additional line of text to be erroneously displayed; for this I apologise."
They like all the others immediately stated that they had NO documentation dating back to that period (because of DPA of course, not because it suits them NOT to have it, in case you submit a SAR) and sent me what they referred to as examples of documentation that would have been sent. I subsequently responded with the actual copies of all of the documentation I had kept including the insurance certificate, the policy document and statements showing premiums.
I also immediately referred my complaint to the FOS providing the insurance schedule and confirmed to them that at no point since I purchased the insurance and received the policy documentation, had LBS ever issued with me with any further documentation notifying me of any errors. Neither did they ever issue me with a revised certificate of insurance schedule document or a wrtitten change notice stating that the Basis of Cover was 'Accident & Sickness' only. Therefore, my claim is that until now I thought I had purchased Accident, Sickness and Unemployment insurance cover, paid my premiums for the duration of my mortgage, was issued with a certificate of insurance confirming my cover and as such I should be entitled to a refund of my premiums.
The LBS are currently standing by their excuse that as I hadn't actually paid for the Accident, Sickness and Unemployment cover, therefore being self-employment has no bearing.
It gets better. On the insurance certificate it also includes a fee free period of 12 months that I never received either. So despite rejecting my PPI claim, they gave me a cheque for 3 months of the fee-free period and not 12 months as stated on the insurance certificate. Worth noting that I clearly didnt understand either the limitations or incentives that I had purchased at the time. However, this experience has resulted in my growing eyes since 1999 and I now read the details of what I purchase before I commit to buy.
Do I have a case for refund on the basis of the above or is a certificate of insurance issued to a customer an irelevant document? Does ICOBS in the FCA Handbook provide rules and guidance to banks and bulding societies that mean that they must correctly specify what you have purchased from them and if they do make 'admin errors', ensurr that they formally and proactively correct them before it's too late. Not that I would have ever been able to make a successful claim any way given I was self-employed, but it would have been a hell of sticky situation for me to have found all of this out at the time had I tried to make a claim on the policy for unemployment - a double whammy - 'sorry you don't actually have the cover you thought you had purchased and even if you did, exclusions apply and you're not eligible for the benefit'. They make sure you're stuffed then and now!
I would love to see some data from some of these banks and building societies that show how many self-employed people made successful unemployment claims on these policies. This data must have surfaced at some stage back in 2005, when the FCA investigated the scandal. I doubt it was many if any.
Regards
G