3 takeaways from a recent FSCL case

In a case reported by FSCL, following a complaint by his client, an adviser stumped up 50% of a client’s income protection premiums paid from 2011 to 2024, which FSCL thought was fair.

According to FSCL, in 2024 the client “…made a complaint against her financial adviser, saying that he did not cancel her income protection policy even though he knew that she had become a stay-at-home parent and had been unemployed since 2011.”

The client told FSCL that “…she did not realise that income protection was still part of her policies package and would have expected the adviser to let her know she was paying for insurance she could not actually claim against.”  No mention is made of the annual renewal notices the client is likely to have received from her insurer!  Most likely these would have recorded that income protection was included in her policy.

The adviser told FSCL he believed that the client “…always planned to go back to work once her children were in school, so she did not want to cancel the policy.”