"Some years ago I changed jobs, out of the public sector. My salary rose, but the conditions of employment were less favourable – in particular in respect of sick pay and termination of contract. A friend suggested I investigate various types of income-protection insurance. I eventually bought from a leading provider a policy that cost £50 per month, and which promised to pay out £1,000 per month for 12 months in the event of a claim. Two years after initiating the insurance my circumstances changed. I claimed on the policy.
Unemployment insurance policies invariably piggy-back on top of the state benefits system. No claim will be admitted unless you have previously registered with a Job Centre. As a matter of fact I had no need to register with a Job Centre, because of my personal financial circumstances and because I already had – by then – enough national-insurance credits to claim the full state pension. My insurance policy defined "unemployment" as "being out of work and receiving the correct class of national insurance credits by reason of unemployment." In my case "the correct class of national insurance credits" was clearly a nonsense. But the underwriters would brook no debate. So, once a fortnight I had to visit my local Job Centre, just to get the vital rubber-stamp and signature scrawled on the claim form"
Of course the story in the article probably is not the norm so there is no need to think that this would happen to everyone. However it is still worth taking note of his advice;
"My advice to anyone taking out such a policy, or having to claim on it, is: read the small print very carefully; don't be afraid to alter any statement you feel is wrong in any report an investigator asks you to sign; demand a copy of any such report; and do not be afraid to challenge the insurance company's idiosyncratic interpretation of its legal obligations"
[ view entry ] ( 1 view ) | permalink |
( 3.2 / 60 )
Calendar
