View more on these topics

Alan Lakey: Staying on the right side of the FOS


Many advisers are concerned about offering critical illness cover to their clients as it is deemed a minefield where each insurer offers a different plan with different conditions and, often, different claim wordings.

The fear is that the area is complex and a simple error could result in a claim and interaction with the Financial Ombudsman Service. For this reason, it is sensible to consider those areas where the FOS receives complaints and how it deals with them.

A year or so back the ombudsman issued guidance on how it assesses and adjudicates complaints concerning critical illness insurance. It advised four prime reasons for complaints:

  1. Whether the product was “fairly and accurately described in marketing materials”
  2. How the insurer has assessed a claim
  3. Alleged non-disclosure
  4. Maladministration

A search through the Ombudsman Database indicates one other regular complaint: that the consumer was told critical illness cover was a requirement as opposed to an option.

The guide conveniently reminds readers that, ordinarily, the FOS can only look at advice given after 14 January 2005, when it first included protection within its remit.

The FOS advises that when a complainant states their condition is not covered (when presumably they believe it should be) they “consider the information that was available to the consumer at the time of sale”. If it then decides the complainant was not aware of the restriction or could not have been expected to know about it, it  might tell the business to pay the claim.

The FOS says it takes a “reasonable approach” to declined total permanent disability claims. Revealingly, it states “it could be we agree that a consumer is not totally disabled from performing three of six activities of daily living but we might still decide they meet the policy definition of disability because they are significantly disabled from performing all of the ADLs”.

As one might anticipate, the FOS will decide whether medical condition criteria for a valid claim were adequately explained to the consumer orally or within the documentation. I mentioned in a previous article that such intrusion is yet another instance of the FOS straying from its intended remit into the area of policy construction and design, a move which will not be welcomed by insurers, reinsurers or advisers.

Rebroking a critical illness plan is an area to be wary of. The FOS emphasises that “it is unlikely we will decide a cheaper premium alone is sufficient reason for restricting cover” and that it also considers whether the consumer was fully aware of any changes.

All of the above issues point advisers toward ensuring their clients fully understand the scope of the cover offered and also any restrictions pertaining to the plan recommended. Sensible advisers will either acquire the necessary knowledge or avail themselves of a system that assesses the differences between plans and produces a personalised compliant report.

Alan Lakey is director of CIExpert



Are last-time buyers the answer to the housing crisis?

Any drive to ease the UK’s housing issues by targeting so-called “last-time buyers” faces significant challenges, according to housing experts. Legal & General published research last week which described the last-time buyers market as critical to solving the UK’s housing problems. A joint study by L&G and the Centre for Economics and Business Research found […]


Intrinsic culls four providers from protection panel

Old Mutual-owned advice network Intrinsic has culled four providers from its protection panel following an independent third party review. The providers who have been removed are Zurich, LV=, Cirencester Friendly and Shepherds Friendly, while Legal & General has been added to the panel. Aegon, Bright Grey, Exeter Family Friendly, Friends Life, Old Mutual Wealth and […]


Francois Hollande urges Greece to negotiate quickly

French President François Hollande has urged the Greek government to quickly return to the negotiating table with its creditors, after talks on Sunday with EU officials in Brussels failed to reach an agreement on a future bailout. The BBC reports Hollande has said there is “little time” to prevent Greece from leaving the eurozone. Speaking during […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Richard Verdin 16th June 2015 at 4:35 pm

    Hi Alan, a good read as always. Can you tell me, did you find any evidence that any adviser has ever had a claim upheld by FOS against them for recomending one company’s product rather than anothers? (excluding rebroking).

  2. Neil Liversidge 16th June 2015 at 6:43 pm

    Technically excellent as always Alan – a joy to read.

  3. Julian Stevens 17th June 2015 at 3:37 pm

    CI is now an area for experts only. I’m glad I do hardly any but the most straightforward and uncomplicated protection business. Most of them seem (for me) to be a major headache one way or another.

  4. @ Neil – thanks.

    @ Richard Verdin – no Richard, I have yet to see an Ombudsman’s decision which does this. Of course, it may be that an adjudicator has done this. In truth I find it hard to imagine that an adjudicator would be capable of reaching such a distinction!

Leave a comment