Is my fa­ther stuck on his life pol­icy?

The Daily Telegraph - Your Money - - READERS’ LETTERS -

My 92-year-old fa­ther has so far paid £5,760 into a Phoenix Life pol­icy for a pay­out that will be £2,278.

He now has nu­mer­ous health is­sues in­clud­ing Parkin­son’s and he is pay­ing for both night care and for car­ers to come in four to five times a day.

He needs ev­ery penny and doesn’t want to con­tinue pay­ing the £24 monthly pre­mi­ums for this pol­icy. Nor does he think it would be sen­si­ble to forgo the cover.

Have you any ideas? KB, HERTS

This was a Se­nior Se­cu­rity Plan (which had started out as a Corn­hill Life pol­icy). This funeral plan had been for over-50s and didn’t re­quire a med­i­cal as­sess­ment.

I spoke to Phoenix Life, which stressed that the de­ci­sion to ap­ply for the pol­icy had been your fa­ther’s. It had not been rec­om­mended by an ad­viser. Your re­quest for ideas as to how this could be dealt with hadn’t, it says, been reg­is­tered as a com­plaint but has been now.

Even so, Phoenix isn’t of­fer­ing any way around this such as al­low­ing for the pre­mi­ums to be paid out of the un­der­ly­ing sum, which I had sug­gested.

Nev­er­the­less, Phoenix told me: “We apol­o­gise for miss­ing sev­eral op­por­tu­ni­ties to in­ves­ti­gate these con­cerns and, in recog­ni­tion of poor ser­vice, we have ar­ranged for a £150 cheque to be sent to Mr B within seven work­ing days.”

At least this will help with the pre­mi­ums for the time be­ing. You say it is wel­come.

LET­TER OF THE WEEK

un­der its man­age­ment.

The let­ter I re­ceived some four months ago is not only alarm­ing in con­tent but am­bigu­ous as to when a promised re­view will be com­pleted.

I have writ­ten to Le­gal & Gen­eral on three oc­ca­sions since re­ceiv­ing the let­ter with noth­ing in­for­ma­tive in re­turn, only hold­ing replies. JC, SHROP­SHIRE

Le­gal & Gen­eral had de­cided to close some un­der­per­form­ing funds

and some rel­a­tively small ones. From the clues I have it ap­pears the ex­er­cise had been fraught.

The let­ter you re­fer to started: “Last year we be­gan an ex­er­cise to move some of our mem­bers out of funds that we in­tend to close.

“We have since iden­ti­fied that we made some er­rors in pro­cess­ing the fund clo­sures as well as in some of the let­ters that we sent to mem­bers at that time.

“We are writ­ing to you now to pro­vide you with an

up­date on our plans to close these funds and to out­line how we in­tend to cor­rect any er­rors that may have af­fected you.”

Le­gal & Gen­eral ad­mit­ted to me that there had been some in­ac­cu­ra­cies and mis­com­mu­ni­ca­tions which, it said, its teams have been work­ing closely among them­selves to re­solve.

Fol­low­ing what I am told was a thor­ough re­view and au­dit, you were of­fered £150 as re­dress. This was in recog­ni­tion for this

tak­ing too long and for your pa­tience, which I agree has been rather taxed.

A spokesman for Le­gal & Gen­eral In­vest­ment Man­age­ment said: “At no point was there any risk that the cus­tomer would suf­fer any fi­nan­cial loss and we re­gret any anx­i­ety caused and the ex­tended time taken to re­solve the mat­ter.”

I asked if the ex­er­cise had been over­seen by a third party. It replied that both the rel­e­vant in­de­pen­dent

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.