I have been explaining these points to my clients for 20 years – it’s all so obvious. So obvious that I had to explain the benefits of two separate polices to some guy from Zurich Life (my so-called BDM) when he came to visit (albeit this was over 10 years ago).
The fact is that we want the banks and building societies to carry on flogging joint life (they don’t know any better) so that when the couple meet an independent adviser sometime afterwards, we can destroy the initial advice and the reputation of the bank and make some money in the process.
I can’t remember the last time I recommended a joint life policy and in my opinion if you are selling lots of joint life you shouldn’t be in the business. I also (when budget permits which is usually) always keep life policies separate, so that if the client has a critical illness and now becomes uninsurable their life cover continues at normal rates.
It’s basic good advice but as previous Bill Wells says the banks haven’t a clue and long may that continue, the public should be made to seek independent advice or is that too simple?
Excuse me Ed, Vince and Mervyn – simple economics – lack of demand means no supply as builders don’t want unsold houses. Help to Buy means at long last first-time buyers can again consider purchasing which gives builders increased confidence to build more houses i.e. increase supply and more jobs in the building industry.
Unfortunately this is being used as a political football rather than thinking about the man in the street.
The legal profession in general has not recognised that. A few of the large firms whose main clients are the banks and lenders whom the CML represent voted against it for the sole reason of self-interest.
Over 600 solicitors who deal with banks and lenders day-in and day-out voted in favour of the change and this represents a significant proportion of the profession.
There has been no change or heart, only that firms who are controlled by banks and lenders through the back door got all their proxies in to vote it down. It’s now up to the public to put pressure for this rule change and hopefully this happens.
The banks, lenders and CML didn’t want the rule change as it would have prevented them obtaining their ultimate goal… taking entire control of the conveyancing system in Scotland. If lenders really did care for the “consumer” they wouldn’t already be reducing their panel numbers and restricting access to solicitors.
And the reason they do this… not to protect the consumer from bad lawyers… but to save on their own costs, make money and, oh, take control!
(No, but we’d love to know who you are as it would contextualise/possibly add weight to your comments! – the editor)
Thank you for your comments (both attributed and unattributed ) this week