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.
Mis-Sold Payment Protection Insurance? Claim It Back Now!
Have You Been Mis-Sold Payment Protection Insurance?
If you took out a loan, mortgage or credit card from a bank or building society in the UK the chances are that you were mis-sold payment protection insurance or PPI as it is often known. The law has now changed and it is possible to reclaim all your payments in full plus in some cases, damages, usually at no cost to yourself through a so called no win no fee agreement..
The types of policies that were mis-sold were mortgage protection, loan payment protection insurance, Credit card insurance and in some cases and income protection. Whether you qualify to claim depends very much upon when you were mis-sold the policy. The new law only covers payment protection insurance policies sold after January 2005. However, many lawyers will pursue on you behalf policies sold before the cut off date, and in many cases recover your payments. there are numerous no-win no-fee law firms starting up to pursue these errant banks and lenders through the UK courts in what has become a multi-billion dollar business.
The good news for the claimant is that these law firms handle everything for you and the only contribution you have to make is confirming the mis-selling took place and banking the check.
You are eligible to claim through the UK courts against a lender who mis-sold you payment protection insurance if you can satisfy any one of the following 13 conditions.
1. The PPI was added without your express agreement or knowledge.
2. The sales staff or person selling the mortgage or loan insurance was coercive, pushy and strongly advised you to take out the PPI cover.
3. You were told you had to take the payment insurance.
4. You were told you could not get the mortgage without MPPI.
5. You were told you could not get the loan without loan payment protection insurance.
6. The cover you were offered was included in the loan or mortgage
7. You knew you were soon to be unemployed.
8. You were self-employed when the payment protection was sold to you.
9. You were retired or over the age limit for PPi cover which is usually 65.
10. You were not asked about any pre-existing medical conditions that you may have suffered from.
11. You were not told that pre-existing medical conditions could affect your insurance cover.
12. You were not informed that the UK's two largest problems for time of work, namely stress and back problems were excluded from the insurance/ or you informed the lenders staff about your medical condition but was not warned that this would affect the protection insurance cover in the event of a claim.
13. You were not asked if you already had any existing mortgage protection or loan insurance in place elsewhere or employer benefits that would cover my repayments.
If any of the above instances apply to you , you have probably been mis-sold payment protection cover and need to contact a solicitor or specialist lawyer who will claim on your behalf. Act now as there may well be additional time limitations put in place as the number of claims rises.
For the latest news of the cheapest payment protection insurance available from independent UK suppliers visit the Payment Protection Insurance News website run by specialist provider Burgesses.com.
Those self serving suits from around Threadneedle Street who we saw exposed in Channel 4's excellent documentary on non-executive banking directors, have been racking their brains recently on how to get the first time buyer market moving.
Laughing into their cafe crappe they must be rubbing their hands in glee that the public furore has shifted onto their erstwhile employers - the MP's of Westminster or as Sky TV would have us call it 'The Rotten Government'
So on the back of the Speaker Bashing, the Government in the guise of Lloyds TSB has today launched a new first time buyer mortgage product called- ‘Lend a Hand’ (who thought of that?) - offering 95% loan to value (LTV)
‘Lend a Hand’ or 'Cop for Your Kids' as it is soon to be known, which is obviously aimed at the middle classes with kids still at home, offers first time buyers a 95% loan to value (LTV) mortgage by taking a legal charge on a savings account belonging to their parents, grandparents, rich friends or anyone else willing to cough up the dough to get the kids a place to live.
The new product is a fixed rate mortgage at 4.39% for 3 years, and is nearly £100 a month less than the industry average 90% mortgage rate at 5.98%. Hmm - isn't the base rate currently 0.5%?
Lloyds are still looking for a 25% deposit but they are allowing this to be made up through a combination of a minimum 5% deposit by the first time buyers and the remainder from the parents or backers savings account.
For example,on a £100,000 property, a 95% LTV mortgage of £95,000 is provided by Lloyds TSB at a three-year fixed rate of 4.39% with a £995 fee. £5,000 is provided by the first-time buyer as a deposit for the property, £20,000 is provided by parents, grandparents or friends and held in the Lloyds TSB ‘Lend a Hand’ savings account earning a fixed rate of 3.5% for 42 months.
Why couldn't they offer the rate Tax-free like an ISA if they really want to encourage people to get involved ?
So what are the multiples of salary limits and can the first time buyer really afford the mortgage repayments?
Furthermore Insurance Blogger is amazed that the Government thinks that there are lots of people have got £20 grand to spare during the current credit crisis and recession, plus a possible further five thousand on top if they really want their kids out the house?
At least Lloyds TSB isn't allowed to sell mortgage payment protection insurance at the point of mortgage sale any more! Granny's pension wouldn't stretch to that!
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.
Government to help halt non Mortgage Payment Repossessions
The Government has announced a new scheme to help people who suffer a temporary loss of income stay in their home. The scheme will apply to mortgage holders who have mortgages up to £400,000. The ten biggest mortgage lenders have nodded approval to the scheme but they're all saying 'we need more details'. The devil may well be in the detail!
The new Homeowner Mortgage Support Scheme will enable households that experience a significant and temporary loss of income as a result of the economic downturn to defer a proportion of the interest payments on their mortgage for up to two years. The Government will guarantee the deferred interests payments in return for banks' pariticipation in the scheme.
The Government will work with lenders over the coming days to develop the scheme in detail, with a view to it being available to customers early in the New Year. The country's eight largest banks have already pledged that they will work with the Government to develop the scheme.
The Chancellor said:
"This is real help for homeowners at risk of repossession through no fault of their own. The scheme will give people who face a temporary fall in their income the confidence that they need to rearrange their finances so they can come through a difficult period without losing their home."
Housing Minister Margaret Beckett said:
"We are determined to do everything possible to ensure that hard working households have the option to stay in their homes, if they suffer a loss of income during the downturn. This scheme will give households the breathing space to get back on their feet again and help ensure they do not face or fear repossession.
It shares the risk of home ownership at this difficult time across all the partners - the Government, the lenders and the borrowers. We want to see all lenders signing up to this scheme as part of their efforts to ensure that repossession is always an absolute last resort."
Our opinion at Insurance Blog is that if the Government introduced their own captive mortgage payment protection insurance scheme utilising the skills of or plagarising the model of a large independent supplier such as British Insurance Ltd, and incorporated it into the National Insurance system then they wouldn't be in the situation they now find themselves - having to underwrite mortgage payments after the event at the taxpayers expense.
Similarly it is a National Security issue if we were to see large scale repossessions of homes and we welcome these proposals as a line of economic defence.
Moreover we're looking forward to further interest cuts today!!
Alliance and Leicester slash fixed rate mortgages!
Alliance & Leicester has launced a new range of mortgage products, with fixed rate mortgages being reduced by up to 0.90% in a bid to generate some demand.
The new mortgage products will be available from Thursday 4 December 2008 and include: Two Year Fixed Rate reduced to 4.94% from 5.79%
· Fixed until 31 December 2010
· £599 product arrangement fee
· Customers can borrow up to 75% of the property value
· 10% overpayment facility
· Maximum loan £250,000
Two Year Fixed Rate reduced to 4.99% from 5.59%
· Fixed until 31 December 2010
· 1% product arrangement fee · Customers can borrow up to 75% of the property value
· 10% overpayment facility
· Maximum loan £1 million
Two Year Fixed Rate FeeSaver reduced to 5.49% from 6.39%
· Fixed until 31 December 2010
· No product fee
· Customers can borrow up to 75% of the property value
· 10% overpayment facility
· Maximum loan £1 million
· Free valuation1
· Remortgage customers get £200 cashback or free Mortgage Transfer Service
Insuranceblogger is pleased to see some movements in the large area of the market that is traditionally risk averse and consequently doesn't benefit when rates go south. Sure to generate some demand in a particularly quiet seasonal period!
New data from Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has shown that house prices have fallen to a 30-year low over the last 3 month period and the number of surveys fell to the lowest since it began in 1978, with sales declining from 11.5 to 10.9.
RICS believe it is the lack of available mortgages which is overwhelming the market. However, they believe that sales would start to rise again now that more sellers are assenting to drop their asking price. And with the Bank of England slashing interest rates by 1.5% , bringing borrowing costs down to 3%, there have been some serious efforts to avoid a deep recession and hopefully these actions will help to enhance sales. However, Britain’s largest bank, the Nationwide, believe that house prices will continue to fall over the next few years. Here we agree with the latter, and despite the drop in interest rates, believe a recovery in the housing market is still a long way off, with the inevitable repossessions and falling house prices to beyond 30%, eventually fuelling a recovering economy in 2011, just one year prior to the London Olympics.
Hurrah ! Now we the taxpayers rescue another failed business - Bradford and Bingley - and as a country are now the proud sponsors of Bradford City FC (as well as Newcastle Utd!).
Bradford and Bingley (aka The Government) also sponsor the Bradford Bulls Foundation, Yorkshire County Cricket Club Indoor Cricket Centre and Bradford and Bingley RFC incidently.
Bradford and Bingley were one of the major culprits in the creation of the Credit Crunch with their ridiculous overloading of buy to let mortgages and self certified mortgages accounting for over 80% of their business, and directly accounting for the outrageous growth in house prices. It was bound to fail and City Analysts were predicting months ago that their shares were worth nothing -much to the annoyance of the banking sector!
It Stinks - these bad businessmen are allowed to create a house of cards in the UK housing market and walk away from it leaving us the taxpayers to pick up the pieces - whatever happened to the free market? And where were the FSA in all this?
On an Insurance front their book of business is relatively small in the larger scheme of things with a lot of home insurance particularly landlord insurance cover and mortgage protection insurance policies sold on the back mortgages.
Our advice to anyone holding these policies is to switch today. This applies particulary mortgage payment protection which is a monthly policy and is easy to cancel and set up elsewhere. With lenders charging more than five times the rates for this type of insurance than the independent sector - you would be wise to switch mortgage insurance today
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
