Miles says: “As this plan has to be taken out in connection with a residential mortgage, it is unsuitable for business protection purposes.” Moseley says it could be very useful.
Looking at Liverpool Victoria's reputation, Miles says: “Liverpool Victoria has yet to establish itself as an IFA company but Permanent, the company it has acquired and rebranded, has a reasonable reputation as protection specialists.”
Moseley says that they have a tacky industrial branch image. He feels that it may change, but it will take time.
Both calls its reputation: “First class. This looks as though it was one Permanent brought on with the merger, and all credit to Liverpool Victoria for taking it on.”
Mitchell does not feel that Liverpool Victoria has a reputation in the IFA market as far as protection business is concerned.
When asked about the plans that will provide the main competition, the panel lists plans from Friends Provident, Zurich Life, Skandia Life, Legal & General, Scottish Provident, Scottish Equitable, Norwich Union and Swiss Life.
Turning to the plan's premiums, Both feels they are competitive. Miles says: “The £7 minimum monthly premium is lower than that of the plan's main competitors and the benefits are competitively priced.”
Mitchell says: “The premiums appear reasonable and competitive and the ability to include all products within one contract certainly increases the convenience for the client.”
Moseley agrees that the premiums are reasonable.
Moving on to whether the charges are fair and reasonable, Mitchell says: “Charges for this type of contract are by definition implicit. The premiums appear to be competitive.”
Both feels they are fair and reasonable, and Miles says: “There are no explicit charges, as they are inherent in the premium charged.”
When asked the same question about commission, Moseley says: “Permanent were always criticised for not paying uplift.”
Miles feels that the commission is reasonable but slightly lower than that offered by the leading protection providers. Both agrees that it is reasonable. Moseley calls it standard.
Mitchell says: “Commission would appear to be reasonable and par for the course, by including unemployment cover within the product many IFAs will prefer to use this type of arrangement rather than organise separate ASU insurance.”
Opinion on the product literature is varied. Both calls it very clear, Moseley says: “Clear but a bit dull.”
Miles says: “The product literature is bland and uninspiring.” Mitchell says: “In many ways the most disappointing aspect of the product is its literature. The client literature is not all that user friendly and too wordy.”
Summing up, Moseley says: “We'll have to see how Liverpool Victoria does, as they are a new player in the demanding IFA market.”
Mitchell feels that the product is well designed, but is let down by the marketing literature.
Both says: “I like the no cross-selling promise – how pleasant to find an insurer who values IFAs and is prepared to publish it where it matters.”