View more on these topics

Scot Wids won’t provide data for Lakey CI site

Highclere Financial Services partner Alan Lakey has hit out at Scottish Widows, claiming it is the only major critical-illness provider that has refused to supply its historical critical-illness definitions and claim data to his comparison service CIExpert. compares plans and offers a list of current and existing conditions and providers’ claim statistics.

Lakey says Aegon, Aviva, Bright Grey, Friends Life, Legal & General, LV=, Scottish Provident and Zurich have all provided historical definitions and claim data.

In February, Widows said it planned to move back into the IFA annuity and protection markets after a review of its intermediary strategy.

Lakey says: “Any company coming back into the IFA market and looking for the goodwill of advisers needs to be upfront.

“It is not good enough simply to come back to the market with a good product, it has got to supply information and be transparent.”

A Scottish Widows spokes-man says: “Scottish Widows publishes its claim figures on an annual basis and these will be announced in due course. There are no regulatory obligations in place that state when and whether providers must disclose their critical-illness data.”



Law firm says sorry after subsidiary blames advisers for PPI

Law firm Goldsmith Williams has apologised and amended its claim management subsidiary’s website after it accused advisers of being largely to blame for the payment protection insurance misselling debacle. Following questioning by Money Marketing, it has changed a statement on PPI Return’s website which said “dishonest financial advisers” missold PPI (see below). It said: “The […]

‘Focus for best use of resources’

Financial Service Consumer Panel chairman Adam Philips says the Money Advice Service must be more focused in its work to ensure an effective use of its resources. MAS’s business plan for 2012/13, published in March, says 19 million adults could benefit from a service “such as ours”. It says it aims to reach 1.9 million […]


Bluefin IFA arm hit by redress and legal costs

Axa-owned IFA Bluefin Personal Consulting has reported a £960,000 pre-tax loss for 2011, compared to a £270,000 profit in 2010. The firm’s accounts for the year ending December 31, 2011 also reveal Bluefin has made a redress provision of £600,000 for possible unsuitable advice as well as paying an inter-company creditor £4.9m. Figures show a […]

Ex-Honister Capital chief Pearson joins PosSol as COO

Aegon-owned IFA Positive Solutions has appointed former Honister Capital chief executive Richard Pearson to the new role of PosSol chief operating officer. Aegon chief operating officer for distribution Iain Black was responsible for PosSol and Origen. He quit last October to pursue a consultancy role. Pearson left Honister at the end of March after less […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 9 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Can they not see how this looks to both advisers and clients alike, or do they know that their proposition was somewhat sparse in terms of the conditions covered and definitions used?
    The fact that they hide behind regulatory obligation as a reason not to provide Alan with the necessary data is somewhat missing the point!

  2. Another tool to use when discussing a clients existing Scottish Widows policy. Thanks for making my job easier Scottish Widows. Very kind of you.

  3. Jonathan Convery 22nd June 2012 at 1:41 pm

    Probably because their policies are rubbish and only cover 27 illnesses.

    They must be mental if they think advisers are going to sell that crap

    Typical bank SCUM. They are not fit to sell policies to the public

  4. All the above points are spot on. The policy has been over priced and under covering consumers for years.

  5. S Widows are missing out here because the CIExpert site enables advisers to assess historic plans against the current versions. generally this confirms that pre 2003 plans have superior definitions for cancer and angioplasty.

    This analysis ensures that advisers do not erroeously rebroke superior CI plans and surely this is in S Widows interest? After all, astonishingly, they sell more CI than anybody.

    Maybe they should reconsider any plans to re-enter the adviser marketplace because good service, commonsense and adviser support are pretty much in demand these days

  6. I have always found Scottish Widows to be approachable and pragmatic even when a new distribution model is being discussed, no idea what the issue is here.

  7. Jonathan Convery 26th June 2012 at 3:05 pm

    Their policies are crap compared to everything else on the market.

    27 illnesses, no DCIS, limited ABI+ definitions, very expensive for the cover they provide etc etc

    They sell on the back of their “trusted brand image” when really their cover is sub standard.

    Even if they do change their proposition I for one will not be selling it. I don’t care how approachable they are

    Evan I take it you work for HBOS/LLoyds???

    While on the subject of the banks still ripping people off, has anyone seen how much RBS load their Aviva policies. This is shocking.

    RBS and Aviva should be ashamed of themselves, especially when the banks are trying to gain back confidence. LOL that’s a joke

  8. How can pre 2003 have better terms for cancer when all the ABI + Definitions and also the enhanced Prostate/Breast Cancer benefits that are farily new to the market? Surely the scope covered by cancer is now better along with the PRU offering partial payments where a decline to payout on a ‘not covered’ basis would be more common than today? Either that or all the amazing percentages of CIC claims paid out are blantant lies? Surely the proof would be in the pudding in terms of payouts? Around 50% of all CIC/SIC claims are cancer right? And paid claims are high 90%’s accross the board right? How can this be worse than pre 2003? So is there really as big a gulf as is being made out or am I missing the point here?

  9. @Bobby

    You are missing the point. Take a £250,000 policy – pre 2003 if early stage prostate cancer with a Gleason score of 2-6 was diagnosed it would have resulted in a claim with the full £250,000 being paid.

    Latest plans limit payment (apart from PruProtect) to a monetary limit of £15,000-£25,000.

    To me that is a major difference which is not generally balanced out by the newer additional conditoons being added.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm