Julian and Francoise believed the whole-of-life policy they had been sold did not match their needs. After reviewing their circumstances we agreed.
Julian and Francoise were in their 40s and had two children. They said they needed life assurance in case one of them died so that there’d be money to support the surviving partner and the children. The business advised them to take out a whole-of-life policy, but the couple later complained because they felt they’d been sold something that didn’t match their needs.
How we helped
We checked the available evidence. The documentation completed at the time of the sale supported what Julian and Francoise told us: they needed the life assurance to be in place until their children were 21. We also found that their pensions would provide for the surviving partner should one of them die after retiring.
It seemed to us that the couple’s needs could have been satisfied more cheaply and appropriately with simple term assurance (which the business could have provided), ending at their anticipated retirement dates.
Putting things right
We told the business to compensate Julian and Francoise for the amount they’d been paying over and above what they would otherwise have paid for term assurance for the same sum assured.
We also told the business to provide the term assurance to the couple without needing to provide evidence of their health and with the same premium that they would have paid if they’d taken it out on the same date as the whole-of-life policy.
Related case studies
Sataj felt an insurance company racially discriminated against him
Consumer unhappy his insurance claim for his damaged drone wasn’t covered by his policy