Mortgage Protection

It's normal for mortgage brokers and banks to try to flog as much insurance as possible.

If they're both employed and in company pension schemes check what the scheme offers for the above - they won't specifically cover mortgage payments of course but they may pay out enough in ill health/death benefits etc for them not to need specific mortgage cover.

If they find they do need insurance then shop around for it, they could get a much better deal than their bank/broker is offering.

Is it wise? Check a few things ..how long they will have to wait before they get the first payment...how long it will pay out for.....what exclusions there are.

I also strongly suspect that they will geta better deal through a third party than through insurance tied to their mortgage provider.

Example for redundancy...doesn't start paying until 3 months in ...only pays for 1st year ..equals 9 months of payments at most....if the one made redundant gets a new job after 6 months, that means they only actually receive 3 months of payments.

And as AP says, does the job include some of the other insurances anyway?

In message , Jerry writes

1. The adviser will earn more if she takes it all out
2. The litigious way things are going the adviser will get sued for poor advice in the future if they do not recommend every thing possible and do not get her to sign that she doesn't want things.

Yes, this is what inadequate advisers are saying to each other, but it is not true.

It is possible to be sued for recommending un-necessary or unaffordable cover, and getting the client's signature is not going to work as a defence if the advice was bad.