Public Sector Employees Facing Redundancy Should Consider Unemployment Insurance
With the recession officially over and 0.5 percent growth in the last quarter of 2009 you might be fooled in believing that unemployment is a thing of the past.
The grim truth is that every day up and down the country people are still losing their jobs in the thousands.
For the Public sector this must be a worrying time. Whoever gets into power come the elections in May, will make public sector job cuts their first priority in order to reduce the massive National debt accrued by so called quantitiive easing.
Civil Servants need to ACT NOW! if they are to protect themselves from redundancy come the Summer of 2010.
Dennis Haggerty Fellow of the Chartered Insurance Institute (FCII) from lifestyle protection company iprotectinsurance explains.........
Up until now, Public Sector jobs have largely escaped the ravages of the recession. Although for Defence related jobs, budget cuts have already begun to bite. Because of this, many Mortgage Protection and Income Protection Insurance providers are currently turning down applications from people who work in the Defence industry, believing they now represent an exceptional level of risk. What is meant by risk? The Underwriters think in terms of the number of redundancies made by a specific employer proving much higher than average. The same view is taken about people working for several Councils currently implementing staff reductions.
"Therefore, it is probably the last chance for the majority working in the Public Sector to buy this type of insurance, before the deep post election budget cuts begin."
State benefits are pitiful compared to the real cost of living for the average family or young couple living in the UK today. When denied their ability to earn a living wage by accident, sickness or unemployment, everyone needs money to fall back on. The fortunate have savings, however the majority will find themselves in real financial trouble within weeks. Research published in 2008 established that most people of working age have less than 2 months wages saved, with 25% reported to have nothing at all. This applies equally to Public Sector employees. Therefore, having an insurance policy that covers all important bills whilst out of work, makes a great deal of sense. For those that need this insurance, get it now before the Underwriters say 'no thanks' to all Civil Servants, Local Authority and Health Service employees.
For anyone employed full time (at least 16 hours per week) in the Public Sector and where there are not any reports of any impending threats to jobs, it would be prudent to consider getting a quote right now. If a Government Department or Council for example, has made an announcement regarding cut backs, a recruitment freeze or layoffs, it is probably too late to buy this cover. Without any doubt, now is the time to get a low premium deal, rather than wait for this cover to rocket in price, or applications to be simply denied altogether.
Even those who already have this type of insurance, perhaps just covering a mortgage or a single loan, should check if they have sufficient benefits. For working couples, particularly where the main wage earner is employed, say, by a Local Authority, it could be prudent for them to take out additional low cost cover whilst it is still on offer.
Mortgage Payment Protection Insurance (MPPI) is designed to cover monthly mortgage payments and can usually be increased by up to 25% to contribute toward other expenses related to the home.
Income Protection Insurance (often called Lifestyle Protection) is very similar to MPPI, however it is designed to replace the majority of net income if the person insured is unable to work. As it pays out for up to a year it is more accurate to describe this as short term income protection insurance. It is not limited to mortgage repayments. However many providers cap their maximum monthly benefits at £1500, some £2000. It is rarely more because the Underwriters make the assumption this would be enough for most buyers to pay their monthly bills.
Most buyers tend to be only be interested in unemployment cover in the mistaken belief health related benefit is less important for them. However there are relatively few providers of unemployment only cover and frequently their competitors will offer full Accident Sickness and Unemployment cover for less! More importantly with 2.4m people in the UK claiming Disability Benefit (Dept of Work and Pensions 2008) the risk of health related claims is greater than many think.
The best rates are available on line where Income Protection and Lifestyle Protection Insurance can be bought without the expense of telephone sales or high commission to inflate the price. Moneysupermarket are a good source of comparison quotes, however the summary of cover should always be read very carefully to ensure what each provider offers for the price, really is like for like.
A web based comparison service is provided by the FSA. This is entirely independent and not trying to sell anything. Their tables also include quality measures, although as a result they are quite complex and therefore not easy to use. However they represent a good place to research a shortlist of suppliers to compare quality as well as price.
Applying for Income Protection, Mortgage Protection or Payment Protection Insurance on-line is a great way to save money. However the acceptance criteria applied by different underwriters varies. If applying on-line does not work out, it may simply mean the applicant is one of many who need advice regarding what to buy.
Payment Protection Insurance - Barclays Challenge Government ruling
Barclays scupper plans for PPI reform
Plans to restrict the sale of payment protection insurance (PPI) at the point when loans or mortgage are granted have been set back following a successful appeal by Barclays bank. The Competition Appeal Tribunal has now been forced to instruct the Competition Commission to back down from its plan to ban PPI sales such as mortgage protection insurance, at this point of the transaction. The Commission released a statement commenting that it would study the judgement closely before deciding what course of action it would take next. In a carefully worded statement however it was made clear that it was only this one small part of their strategy, to make choices clearer for consumers, that was being affected.
A spokesman for the commission commented "The appeal was upheld on one ground which relates to our assessment of the remedy prohibiting the sale of PPI at the point of sale of credit,” before adding that it was because The Commission had been asked to “reconsider the loss of convenience for consumers of not being able to buy PPI at the same time as taking out credit."
Intended to allow consumers a cushion for repayment of their credit cards, loans or mortgages should they fall ill or lose their job, PPI has been a bone of contention between insurance companies and banks and finance companies for some considerable time. Early this year the Commission outlined a range of limitations on the sale of PPI with some commentators claiming the lack of competition in the field has led to “persistently high prices”. The Commission had stated that from October 2010, lenders would be unable to initiate a sale of a policy for up to 7 days after granting a loan to combat the “point of sale” advantage that the lenders had gained.
However after challenging the Commission’s plan on four separate grounds – three of which related directly to the point of sale restriction, Barclays have successfully convinced a tribunal that putting this plan into place could put customers who actually wanted to purchase cover at a disadvantage.
Referring to the plans laid out by the commission as a “remedy without consent” the Tribunal concluded that the Commission had failed to take into account the “loss of convenience which would flow from the imposition of the point of sale prohibition”. The Tribunal also added that it was this “constituted failure to take into account a relevant consideration” that meant that the Commission would need to revise its plans once more.
However the overhaul of how PPI sales are regulated is still continuing at a rapid pace as complaints from consumer organisations and those who believe they have been mis-sold PPI grow exponentially. This year alone we have already seen the FSA tell banks and other financial institutions to compensate those who may have been mis-sold policies, re-open the 185,000 old complaints that have been dismissed, and stop selling the much criticised single premium PPI, whilst companies offering help and advice to claim back fees spent on mis-sold PPI has practically become an industry in itself.
Referred to as a “protection racket” in some corners of the industry due to abnormally high cost policies being sold to people who can’t actually make a valid claim under the terms of their agreements PPI providers added excess profits of £1.4bn to their coffers in the heady days of 2006 when the Competition Commission first began making enquiries into the sector.
As Martin Lewis of financial advice website moneysaingexpert.com succinctly commented “Bank-based PPI is a near con - it's hideously over-expensive, billions of pounds of it have been mis-sold, and the sooner it's cleaned up and cleared out the better.”
At a time when public faith in the entire banking sector is at an all time low how the public will react to this further delay in cleaning up what is a tainted section of both the banking and insurance worlds’ remains to be seen. However, the general consensus amongst financial commentators is again echoed in Mr Lewis’ comments "It's a shame Barclays has succeeded in using its lawyers to delay the implementation of such an important ruling"
Whether they have stemmed the tide for good, or as Mr Lewis suggests have simply delayed the inevitable is uncertain, but for the time being the Bank’s are refusing to let this go without a fight.
Kris Oldland
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WARNING DO NOT BUY PPI FROM A BANK - EVER!
Insuranceblogger urges consumers to shop around and buy mortgage protection insurance from independent suppliers after they have researched the market. The point of removing PPI sales from mortgage and loan sales was to stop the consumer from being pressurised into buying overpriced products to secure the loan.
Once again a bank, admittedly not one overly involved in the toxic debt fiasco , but one intricately involved in the collapse of the banking system by it's failure to step in and rescue Lehman Bros. (until they had collapsed and they cherry picked the best bits!), is allowed to dictate to Parliament and interfere with the due process of consumer law! Insuranceblogger recommends checking out alternative protection products such as Lifestyle Income Protection Insurance which has wider covers and is not tied to any particular lump sum debt.
FSA orders GBP 60 Million Mortgage Protection Insurance Repayments
More than a million UK householders are to get refunds on their recent mortgage protection insurance monthly payments, after the City watchdog, the FSA, forced PPI providers including giant firms such as Aviva and Abbey; to pay back over GBP60 million in increased Mortgage Protection Insurance premiums, which were slapped on already cash strapped mortgage borrowers earlier this year. Over 2.1 million UK consumers have policies to repay mortgages and loans with accident, sickness and unemployment insurance attached.
The major UK money lenders have had over 10 years of collecting premiums on inflated house prices, with very few claims. But with claims now rising due to the recession, they've been recently hiking up the rates on many of these policies to maintain their profit levels.
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) and Mortgage Payment Protection Insurance (MPPI) firms have agreed an industry-wide package of measures for consumers, including refunds of around £60 million.
The industry has acted in response to FSA concerns over recent increases in premiums and reductions in what customers are covered for under their policy. The FSA’s concerns centred on the terms permitting these changes, and how clearly they were disclosed. The FSA expects its concerns to be addressed by the agreement reached. Following discussions initiated by the FSA with relevant trade bodies and some firms, the industry has responded positively by agreeing to:
• proactively refund increases in premiums, and reverse any reductions in cover, for customers who have experienced these changes to their policy in 2009; • offer to reinstate policies where a customer had cancelled it within two months of an increase in premium or reduction in cover made during 2009; • freeze premiums and cover for existing customers for at least the remainder of this year • amend Mortgage Protection Insurance contracts to ensure that all customers are made aware of the circumstances in which firms have the right to vary premiums and cover.
New contracts will mean customers get a fairer deal with two months' notice of any changes to enable people to compare mortgage protection insurance products and switch mortgage protection if necessary.
Jon Pain, managing director of supervision at the FSA, said:
"The FSA welcomes this positive move by Mortgage Protection Insurance firms to reverse recent changes in premiums or cover which will put affected customers back in the position they were in before the policy was changed. It will also give all MPPI customers clarity about when and why firms will be able to vary these in future. "This clarity will provide the basis for MPPI to remain a valuable option for many mortgage customers who wish to take out protection, alongside the mortgage commitment they are taking on." The affected companies will contact customers if their policy is affected, and will make all refunds by the end of June 2010.
The Consumer Panel has also welcomed the announcement today of FSA action and an industry-wide refund on Mortgage Protection Insurance. Adam Phillips, Chairman of the Financial Services Consumer Panel, said: “This is exactly what a financial regulator should be here for and we applaud the FSA’s action. It cannot be right that firms change the terms and conditions of an insurance policy just as times get hard and when people are more likely to try to claim on it. We note that this agreement is to freeze premiums and cover for existing customers until at least January 2010. We will be watching to see how the FSA ensures Mortgage Protection customers continue to get a fair deal beyond this date. Significant changes to cover go against the whole principle of why people pay for insurance and undermine consumers’ trust in the industry.”
Burgesses Insurance News has published an interesting article today looking at the rationale behind the purchasing of insurance as a protection vehicle, and questions why the public are disinterested and can't be bothered when it comes to purchasing Mortgage Protection for the largest investment of all - a house!...........
It it just that the public doesn't appreciate the risks? Until it is too late....
Mortgage insurance – why be vulnerable?
First Published Burgesses.com July 27th, 2009 in Mortgage Insurance |
Most people are thoroughly accustomed to one of the most basic principles of insurance – if something is valuable, it is probably worth insuring. Although the principle might be widely recognised in many other areas of domestic life, however, for some reason it does not seem to be so readily grasped when it comes to mortgage insurance.
Only an estimated 25% of the nation’s 11.7 million mortgage borrowers are believed to have arranged this potentially indispensable for of insurance. Given the sheer value of the mortgaged homes, not to mention the dire consequences of defaulting on the mortgage repayments, the statistic is surprising to say the least. Some three-quarters of borrowers seem to be leaving themselves vulnerable to the most common risks to their incomes – accidents, illnesses and unemployment – and with the loss of an income, the ability to continue their mortgage repayments.
The penalties for defaulting on the mortgage repayments, of course, can be serious indeed. In the worst cases, it can lead to repossession of the home itself by a mortgage lender determined to recover the outstanding debt. But even if some arrangement can be reached with the lender, the homeowner is still vulnerable. If mortgage repayments cannot be made, the home might have to be sold – even though the current state of the housing market might mean that such a sale realises less than the outstanding mortgage debt. At the very least, the late or non-payment of the mortgage instalments as they fall due will attract adverse credit reports on the borrower’s file. This will make borrowing – or any other form of credit – more expensive to arrange in the future, if the facility is extended to the individual at all.
This is a vulnerability that the homeowner can easily avoid with mortgage insurance. The insurance can offer complete protection for the mortgage repayments in the event that the policy holder meets with an accident or suffers an illness that prevents normal earnings from work. The same protection is also extended if the policy holder loses his or her job through compulsory redundancy. In any of these events, such a policy will pay out an insured benefit from which the mortgage repayments can continue to be paid – in many instances, directly to the mortgage lender concerned, if needs be.
Once in payment, the mortgage insurance monthly benefit payments ensure that the mortgage is repaid every month that the policy holder remains incapacitated for work, involuntarily unemployed, or for up to a typical maximum period of 12 months, whichever is the shorter time. Taking up the option offered by some policies, payouts can be made over an even longer period and extended for up to a maximum of 24 months, if an additional premium is paid.
12800 UK homes repossesed in the first quarter of 2009
Despite the UK government saying they eould help keep people in their homes there were over 12000 repossessions in the UK in first quarter of 2009.
There were 12,800 repossessions through the courts by first-charge on the property mortgage lenders and banks, in the first quarter of this year, according to the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML).
This compares with 10,400 in the fourth quarter of last year, and 8,500 in the first quarter of 2008. Insuranceblogger is disgusted that the people who created the credit crunch crisis for those poor repossessed are so quick to resort to the courts!
Although repossessions are still rising, the CML now thinks its earlier 75,000 repossessions forecast looks pessimistic for the year as a whole, and expects to revise the figure downwards in its next housing market forecast update later this summer.
The number of mortgages in arrears continued to rise both months in arrears and as a percentage of the total outstanding mortgage value.
The number of existing mortgages has declined from around 11.7 million to around 11.1 million.
According to a suit from the CML - "The key message continues to be: talk to your lender as soon as you identify difficulties emerging, and take advice from an independent money adviser if you have other debt issues as well as your mortgage. Lenders do not want to repossess if a realistic alternative solution can be found."
Hmm - have a look at this, especially if you are being threatened by debt collectors
Courts, bailiffs, debt collectors and repossesions can be avoided with mortgage protection insurance which will keep a roof over your head even if you lose your job!. Act now before its too late!
Questions have been asked in the House of Commons regarding tenants who have been paying their rent and fulfilling all their other obligations but who nonetheless find they are at risk of losing their home. What protection do they have?
We sympathise with tenants who find themselves in this position. So, what can lenders with the charge on the property do in cases where the tenant is paying their rent, but the landlord is not using this money to meet their mortgage commitments?
It seems it all depends upon what type of mortgage the landord has and the protection for tenants falls into two distinct groups, and are affected in quite different ways.
The first are those whose landlord has a buy-to-let mortgage, and these tenants are generally in a much stronger position.
The second group comprises those whose landlord has a residential mortgage. A borrower with this type of loan should seek the permission of the lender before renting out the property. Where the lender agrees, it will be bound by the tenancy agreement. That provides protection for the tenant, should the mortgage lender need to take possession of the property or appoint a receiver because the borrower stops paying the mortgage.
In some cases, however, a borrower with a residential mortgage decides to rent out the property without telling the mortgage lender, in contravention of the mortgage agreement and perhaps even fraudulently. These tenants have been disadvantaged and their tenancies put at risk through no fault of their own. Likewise the mortgage lender. It is quite likely that neither the lender nor the tenant will even be aware of each other’s interest in the property. Both have been put in a difficult position because of the irresponsible behaviour of the borrower.
But while mortgage lenders may sympathise with tenants in this position, it is important to understand that their legal responsibility – reinforced by regulatory requirements – is to the landlord, and not to the tenant.
The lender has an obligation to minimise arrears and get the best price possible for the property. This is likely to lead the lender to seek possession of the property quickly. In this situation, the tenant has few rights.
So how common is this problem? Recent television coverage of the issue reported it against the backdrop of 75,000 mortgage possessions this year.
The reality is, however, that only a much smaller proportion of total possessions – perhaps 4,000 this year, or around 5% of the total, according to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) – will involve residential mortgages where the lender discovers the property is occupied by tenants.
Buy-to-let mortgages
If tenants are renting from a borrower with a buy-to-let mortgage, they are in a better position. Here, the tenancy is normally binding on the lender if it needs to take enforcement action against the borrower/landlord. The tenant will have the statutory right to notice under their assured shorthold tenancy.
Instead of seeking possession, the lender may choose to appoint a receiver, who will, as far as the tenant is concerned fulfill the role of the landlord, maintaining the property and collecting the rent.
Under an assured shorthold tenancy, a tenant is entitled to the remainder of their contractual period – which is typically six months but can be longer – as notice and to a minimum of two months at the end of that period. In practice, a lender or receiver will often allow the tenant to remain beyond the notice period until rent arrears are paid off or the tenant chooses to leave.
Sometimes, a property may be sold with a sitting tenant. This is rare, however, because the lender has a responsibility to the borrower to obtain the best price for the property, which usually implies sale with vacant possession.
New Advice agency campaign
A number of organisations, including Crisis, Citizens Advice, Shelter and the Chartered Institute of Housing have launched a campaign to help tenants when the mortgage lender takes enforcement action. The campaign calls for courts to be able to delay possession to allow tenants to find an alternative home.
But if there is a residential mortgage on the property, giving the tenant more time to find a new home could put the lender in conflict with the borrower, particularly if it means mortgage arrears build up and the property is eventually sold for less than would have been the case if it was marketed straight away. If the landlord had had adequate mortgage protection insurance for commercial premises the situation would not have arisen in the first place
The campaign also calls for notices to occupiers to be made more obvious and perhaps to carry a risk warning. Landlords Insurance is available to compare online.
Avoid Home Repossessions with Mortgage Protection Insurance
The Council of Mortgage Lenders has just published statistics on mortgage arrears and possessions. Worringly but hardly surprising, the figures for 2008 show a sharp rise on the same period last year.
Key Facts include:
• 5,000 fewer repossessions than forecast in 2008 • 40,000 repossessions in the year - 1 in 290 mortgages • 10,400 repossessions in the fourth quarter - 1 in 1,100 mortgages • 1 in 64 mortgages in arrears of 2.5% or more • 1 in 53 mortgages in arrears of three months or more (inflated by lower interest rates) • 75,000 repossessions forecast for 2009 remains unchanged
Around 10,400 properties were taken into possession by first charge mortgage lenders in the fourth quarter of 2008, down from 11,100 in the previous quarter but up from 6,900 in the fourth quarter of 2007, according to the Council of Mortgage Lenders.
The total number of first-charge repossessions in the year was an estimated 40,000.
This was 5,000 lower than the CML's original forecast for the year.
The fact that there were 11% fewer repossessions than expected, despite a worsening economy and unemployment rising by the thousands daily, appears to show that the mortgage lenders appear to be listening to the Government somewhat, to ensure that repossession really is a last resort.
It is important to recognise that repossessions include a proportion of abandoned properties and property fraud. They also include buy-to-let repossessions, as well as home-owner repossessions. In the majority of cases where home-owners are committed to working with their mortgage lender to keep their home the CML states that repossessions can be avoided.
We often get told 'we've got mortgage indemnity' or 'we don't need mortgage payment protection as we've got mortgage indemnity'. So we thought we had better put the record straight on the differences between the two.
If you are paying mortgage indemnity insurance (which you shouldn't be) you are paying for a lender to be protected should you fall foul of the credit agreement and not pay the loan or mortgage.
Mortgage indemnity is insurance that your lender may ask you to take out for its protection in case, at some future stage, you fall significantly behind with your mortgage payments and your lender has to repossess your property and sell it. If the property is sold for less than the amount of your outstanding mortgage, your lender can claim on the mortgage indemnity to recover some (or all) of its loss.
You should be aware that mortgage indemnity does not cover you. You must repay all the money owed under your mortgage, whether or not your lender makes an indemnity claim.
Mortgage payment protection insurance or MPPI protects your mortgage payments should you lose your job or get sick. Most mortgages can be covered for under £20 per month if you go to an independent supplier such as Personal Accident or British Insurance. MPPI, or mortgage payment protection insurance, is private insurance that borrowers may take out to insure against sudden loss of income due to unemployment or health-related difficulties. This type of insurance is also known as Accident, Sickness and Unemployment insurance or ‘ASU’.
It is a good idea to take out MPPI, or some other form of income protection insurance, because state benefits do not normally cover mortgage interest during the first nine months you are out of work. The above independent suppliers will offer insurance cover that is suitable for you and your circumstances - and can cover you if you are self-employed, on a fixed term contract, or have a pre-existing medical condition.
Nationwide - profits down but charts a steady course
The Nationwide, Britain’s biggest building society, has seen its half-yearly pre-tax profits fall by 18% to £322m, down from £394m for September last year.
Nationwide admitted it had been hit by a “challenging economic environment” which saw bad debts rise £12m from last year, as mortgage borrowers continue to struggle with mortgage repayments during the global recession. Mortgage Insurance protection can be found at Personal Accident
The lender’s book of bad debts now stand at £74m. The 2007 aquisition of the Portman Building Society and it's subsequent incorporation, is a major factor in the fall in profits. Its net share of the lending mortgage market has fallen 0.6% down to 5.6%, however the number in arrears stands at only 0.4%, compared to an industry average of 1.33%. These figures reflect the uncompetitive mortgages offered and the shrewd approach to the buy to let market in the past few years.
Nationwide remains confident that recent interest rate cuts will help minimise payment issues and reduce the impact to customers reaching the end of current deals. It also suggested that the fall in house prices would "improve affordability, which should bring about a recovery in the first time buyers' market".
Nationwide was one of the few lenders that immediately agreed to pass on the Bank of England's 1.5% interest rate cut to mortgage holders last week.
The official figures for the number of repossessions for the period of April to June this year have just been released and show that the number of houses being taken back by the banks and building societies through the courts, has risen a massive 71% than a year earlier.
With 11,054 new cases in Q2, the Council of Mortgage Lenders are predicting even higher repossessions for the period just finished and a spokesman estimates that by Christmas 2008 170,000 homes will be under threat from repossession, being 3 months or more behind with their mortgage repayments.
With the economy only just on the start of the road to recession, the picture for the new year looks gloomier daily.
If you believe that your job may be under threat in the not too distant future, mortgage payment protection insurance is the sensible option to keep the baillifs and wolves from your door. You should be aware that these policies will not pay out if you are made unemployed during the first month of the policy - so act now!
UK Finance Giants withdraw Unemployment Mortgage Protection Insurance for own employees
Insurers may withdraw Mortgage Protection Insurance cover to their own employees
In the wake of the credit crunch, collapse of Lehman Bros. , the inevitable threat hanging over the future of Amercian insurance giant AIG, and the unprecedented collapse of UK Insurance giant HBOS shares by 40% in one day, you could argue that MPPI unemployment Insurers are right to worry and already some capital lenders are refusing to offer payment protection insurance to homeowners and employees who work for banks and building societies. Some Underwriters have gone further becoming more risk averse and have included all financial services sector workers including insurance company employees, IFAS and insurance broker staff. This adds to the growing list of trades and professions who are now finding it increasingly difficult to puchase unemployment insurance to protect their mortgages, income level or loans.
Construction workers, estate agents, conveyancing solicitors and services and more recently removal firm staff can no longer easily purchase mortgage payment protection insurance or the other products that could ease the pain of being unemployed.
The move could be indicative that the UK Insurance market is heading for recession. Insurance Staff have been made unemployed gradually over the the last six months, with a recent 6000 redundancies at Norwich Union flying under the general radar, with other insurance company giants creating redundancy hitlists.
A spokesperson for Personal Accident - one of the UK's largest online independent mortgage protection insurance providers, who compare policies on price and cover - said, "It's true that we have received notices from some of our underwriters withdrawing certain particular income related unemployment cover for a list of trades within the financial services sector. However we can still offer age-related policies for income protection insurance and mortgage protection insurance to all bank and building society staff, which generally offer better cover at lower prices as they are not lifestyle rated and available to anyone. As these are monthly policies they are simple to change midstream - you could save yourself a fortune in premiums if you switch your policy from a bank or building society and a lot of worry if you are unfortunate and join the ranks of the mass unemployed, or your building society or bank collapses leaving your policy worthless. Could you meet your mortgage repayments or pay bills without a job? These are very worrying times...."
Simon Burgess head of independent provider Burgesses agreed. "Age-related unemploment insurance offers the best solution to financial services workers who may be threatened with unemployment. We offer policies to cover your mortgage, wages or debts whilst you are unemployed. I would however advise anyone thinking of protecting themselves from financial harm if they lose their job, to act fast as there is a ninety day exclusion no claims period from the start of the policy." He added, "Although our mortgage protection insurance has seen a downturn with the number of new mortgages being taken out virtually non-existant due to the credit crunch, we have recently seen a sharp rise in the number of unemployment insurance applications, particularly from workers in financial services."
So it appears that if you want to be able to pay your mortgage in three months time or still have an income you should take out payment protection insurance cover today. This is particularly prudent for financial services sector workers whose jobs appear to be most at risk.
Insurance Blog is dedicated to all things happening in the Insurance World. From tips on where to get the best insurance deals to news from the Insurance Industry, you'll find answers at Insurance Blog
About Me
Name: Insurance Blogger
Location: United Kingdom
Insurance Internet Guru
Enjoy:
All things Insurance and anything related to the UK Insurance Market
