| Latest Post |
Advertising
A lot of people come to us to remortgage and are over-protected with various different types of insurance they do not even need from when they arranged their original mortgage. From a treating customers fairly point of view, how did a bank end up selling cover to a client that does the same thing as another insurance policy they already have? Was the fact find completed properly? Maybe banks are not assessing what insurance the client already has? Ronan Marrion, Worldwide Financial Planning Limited, Cornwall
Matt Morris, LifeSearch Limited, London
Dear Ronan,
Banks make huge profits selling substandard policies like payment protection insurance and they often look at the policy as a way to supplement their income, especially when the mortgage market is going through a tough patch, as it is now.
Should it be any surprise if they are more concerned with selling their policies than treating customers fairly? This is why it is so important for consumers to take independent advice as opposed to advice from someone who is tied and cannot search the whole of the market. Protection is the cornerstone of good financial planning and the consequences of getting it wrong is far worse than in investments and savings, for example.
The job of a good protection adviser is indeed to take the client on a fact finding journey to discover what the client's wants and needs are and then find the right policy to match. Checking what other policies the client has and what other benefits they may be entitled to is basic in being able to give good protection advice. If the banks are not doing this they are not doing a good job.
Richard Fox, Society of Mortgage Professionals, London
Dear Ronan,
That there are examples of insurance products being mis-sold is not in doubt. The FSA has found instances in both the lender and the intermediary population where consumers have bought products that were not suited to their particular needs.
Such instances are particularly serious where advice has been given. As with all insurance, consumers need to be made aware of exclusions that might be triggered by their particular circumstances. There are good reasons why individuals should seek to insure themselves against the risks associated with large transactions and individuals should be encouraged to take out cover. Sadly however the potential benefits these products offer to consumers is being damaged by publicity given to those cases where the correct cover has not been arranged.
Cases where inappropriate sales have taken place have shown the particular care that needs to be taken when dealing with these products. They are complex and most consumers are likely to need significant help in identifying what is appropriate for them. Beware the temptation to bundle different financial services products together is a manner that might appear logical, but which in fact is fraught with complications that can impact on the consumer.
In all cases where the policy characteristics do not match with the client requirements the issue is frequently presented as being a treating customers fairly issue. At one level that is significant but more importantly the adviser has the responsibility to ensure their recommendation provides cover that is sufficient for the needs of the client and regard has been given to the relevance of exclusions, excesses, limitations or conditions in the contract.
Robin Gordon-Walker, FSA, London
Dear Ronan,
The general position on payment protection insurance is under the FSA's revised insurance conduct of business sourcebook, which came into force at the start of this year.
A firm arranging a payment protection contract must take reasonable steps to ensure the customer only buys a policy under which he is eligible to claim benefits; and if at any time while arranging the policy it finds parts of the cover do not apply, inform the customer so he can take an informed decision on whether to buy the policy.
Our guidance in support of this rule states for a typical payment protection contract the reasonable steps required in the first part of the eligibility rule are likely to include checking the customer meets any qualifying requirements for different parts of the policy.
Donna Werbner, Fool.co.uk, London
Dear Ronan,
The founder of Forbes magazine, B.C. Forbes, once said: "The man who has won millions at the cost of his conscience is a failure." In my opinion, financial advisers who sell unnecessary cover to a client are more than failures, they should be hung, drawn and quartered.
There is no excuse: either it demonstrates sloppy fact-finding and professional incompetence or it shows a completely unethical lack of care for the client. Neither is acceptable, particularly in a regulated environment. The fact the client who gets the raw deal is typically an existing customer of the bank, who has gone to the bank because there is a relationship of trust there, just makes the whole thing even more morally reprehensible. I can only be grateful that, nowadays, consumers do have a choice and can choose to go to an independent adviser that has their true interests at heart.
Martyn James, Financial Ombudsman Service, London
Dear Ronan,
Occasionally, when a consumer remortgages their property, it can highlight a problem with a previous mortgage sale. Remortgaging can present an opportunity to reassess a customer's requirements and streamline their finances.
As part of the process, mortgage intermediaries will often need to consider a range of factors relating to a consumer's income and expenditures. This may include looking at protection policies that are already in place. If it becomes clear insurance policies have been sold that duplicate cover or are unsuitable for a consumer's needs, a complaint should be made in the first instance to the business that is responsible for the sale. The business has a maximum of eight weeks to resolve the dispute directly with its customer. If the consumer remains unhappy, or if the business does not resolve the complaint in time, they can refer the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.