Income insurance (protection)

JohnN

JohnN

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,359
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

Can anyone recommend a good company/policy to protect income - my jobs not in any danger, but worth having something just in case.

Cheers
 
I would suggest to engage with an independent financial advisor as this isn't an internet answerable question in my opinion. It is such a personal product, well it should be if you want it to mean anything, and would totally depend on your personal circumstances which I suggest you should not disclose in public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Thanks for responding but I never got the it depends on your circumstances thing, I earn £x if I'm made redundant I need a percent of x, being as it all comes down to a basic number no matter how it's spun does one person differ so much from them next?

I hope that didn't come across wrong I really am grateful for any reply it's just I never got it and it always seemed like a way to keep finance a mystical art
 
Most income protection is short term to protect against disasters rather than unemployment. Insurance that protects loans is now a bad word in financial circles....ppi....
The cost of an insurance that woud cover unimployment and redundancy to cover lost income would be prohibitive.
 
No that is fine. Lots of differences though; how much do you require, how long for, under what circumstances, is there any deferred period before it kicks in. Just a few to begin with. Depending on the personal responses very different policies and companies become attractive to you. Also don't forget your circumstances change with life events, therefore it is not static.
 
The only income protection insurance I've ever come across is for self employed people and will pay a certain percentage of your income for a short amount of time if you are unable to work due to ill health or an accident.

Never heard of any policy that would cover against unemployment. I would imagine far to open to fraud.
 
ecoleman said:
The only income protection insurance I've ever come across is for self employed people and will pay a certain percentage of your income for a short amount of time if you are unable to work due to ill health or an accident.

Never heard of any policy that would cover against unemployment. I would imagine far to open to fraud.
Click to expand...

"Accident, sickness and unemployment" policies which cover people in full time employment have existed for at least 15 years, though they tend to be called "income protection" nowadays.
 
ecoleman said:
The only income protection insurance I've ever come across is for self employed people and will pay a certain percentage of your income for a short amount of time if you are unable to work due to ill health or an accident.

Never heard of any policy that would cover against unemployment. I would imagine far to open to fraud.
Click to expand...
What do you think PPI is? Missold by the banks for years but useful if sold properly

as an example

http://www.bestinsurance.co.uk/NL/u...nAnJ3fGnrHTvILSe1P9k8vql9Ca4Ng0E5AaAhUI8P8HAQ
 
Last edited:
onomatopoeia said:
"Accident, sickness and unemployment" policies which cover people in full time employment have existed for at least 15 years, though they tend to be called "income protection" nowadays.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. I never knew they were available for people in full time employment.
 
They're usually carefully designed so you can't claim off them when you need to. Read the small print carefully!
 
srichards said:
They're usually carefully designed so you can't claim off them when you need to. Read the small print carefully!
Click to expand...
That's not correct otherwise they couldn't be sold in the era of FCA compliance. The issue was they were incorrectly sold- for example to the self employed (who couldn't claim under the unemployment benefit)- They are a useful protection policy in the right circumstances and should for many people be the first policy they should buy.
 
Last edited:
The only assured employment insurance would be to get yourself elected to the House of Commons. Stay away from ministerial posts, become adept at screaming 'hear hear' and don't overdo any nodding.... the cameras don't dwell on MPs with neck braces... nice pension and loads of freebies, board non-executive paid roles etc. Nice pension too, free travel, cheap food, paid accomodation...

As for income insurance..... best of luck. All insurance is risk based and so it has to be a win-win for the insurers.

1. Win from your premium

2. Win by you living longer

3. Win when they find out you did not declare your ingrowing toe nail....

Pay down your mortgage quicker

Do you need to use a credit card but only pay back minimum?

Accumulate wealth even when interest rates are non exitent...

We exist in strange times.
 
Thanks guys, I actually have one (I forgot the details) but I certainly does have some exclusions, such as wont pay out in the first month, only up to 12 months and that's the stuff on the surface.

I originally asked as I'm considering cancelling (and hope Sod's law doesn't kick in!)
 
What I should do is become a director, that way when I become completely useless (as I would if I were a director as it appears to be a prerequisite;)), get the golden handshake, then immediately get another job that requires going to pointless meetings and swanning about the country on expenses until the next golden handshake [emoji3]
 
Beware!!! I had income protection insurance, but they refused to payout based on my being as they saw it self employed, despite my not satisfying ANY of their criteria, I did run my own sole director company, but I was also a PAYE employee of said company. So all they did was cancel the policy and refund my premiums to that date, nothing like the figure I should have received based on my premiums. The small print excluded anything other than actual salary I.e. no dividends etc, despite the premiums being based on salary and dividends.
Thieves and highway robbers.
Matt
 
Sorry to hear that, can't say I'm surprised though, I don't much trust insurance companies

Seriously sucks though and thanks for replying, mind me asking which company?
 
Santander
 
Interesting, being one of the mainstream ones I thought they wouldn't be too bad.
 
Hugh Jarse said:
The only assured employment insurance would be to get yourself elected to the House of Commons. Stay away from ministerial posts, become adept at screaming 'hear hear' and don't overdo any nodding.... the cameras don't dwell on MPs with neck braces... nice pension and loads of freebies, board non-executive paid roles etc. Nice pension too, free travel, cheap food, paid accomodation...
Click to expand...
And you have to win a populatrity contest every five years, based on factors that you largely can't control. And be answerable to 100,000 or so people in addition to weekdays in the commons, essentially give up having any kind of private life due to "legitimate public interest" from the media.

For what they get paid (and I earn way less than an MP's basic salary), no chance.
 
MatBin said:
Beware!!! I had income protection insurance, but they refused to payout based on my being as they saw it self employed, despite my not satisfying ANY of their criteria, I did run my own sole director company, but I was also a PAYE employee of said company. So all they did was cancel the policy and refund my premiums to that date, nothing like the figure I should have received based on my premiums. The small print excluded anything other than actual salary I.e. no dividends etc, despite the premiums being based on salary and dividends.
Thieves and highway robbers.
Matt
Click to expand...

As a PAYE employee of said firm, you are ultimately employed by the Director of that company.
If you are the Director of that company, then you are employing yourself.....Ergo.....
 
viv1969 said:
As a PAYE employee of said firm, you are ultimately employed by the Director of that company.
If you are the Director of that company, then you are employing yourself.....Ergo.....
Click to expand...
But none of their conditions for self employment were satisfied by my situation when I took out the policy, their definition of self employment changed after policy inception and I was not notified of the change, they had no record of updating me with new t&c. Consequently my policy should have paid out in my view, although I agree in effect I could be considered self employed, their definition (and that of the Inland Revenue) did not define me as self employed. There is a very clear definition of self employment, and one of being a sub contracting company, the correct definition is used to ascertain how the entity is taxed etc. Someone employed by a single director company is not self employed which is why they pay PAYE tax/ni, but some insurance companies see it differently, hence my warning to be careful when selecting an income support policy.
Matt
 
Last edited:
If and when you do take on such a policy, it is deferred for 12 months before you can make a claim - and even then the claim itself only lasts for 12 months before that is stopped. That's what I found out when I lost my job 5 years ago after working for the same firm for 17 years. I have paid into such a policy for 15 years to cover the mortgage and they agreed to cover me for that whole year, even though I ended up being a home carer. As soon as that ran it's course, I then cancelled the policy as there wasn't much point in keeping it going thereafter as 1) due to my home circumstances which isn't classed as full time employment and 2) there's only 3 years left on what is a small mortgage anyway. That would then save me £29 a month which isn't a lot but could be put to better use - but at least it gave me a year's worth of breathing space as I adapted to my changed circumstances.
 
Last edited:
MatBin said:
But none of their conditions for self employment were satisfied by my situation when I took out the policy, their definition of self employment changed after policy inception and I was not notified of the change, they had no record of updating me with new t&c. Consequently my policy should have paid out in my view, although I agree in effect I could be considered self employed, their definition (and that of the Inland Revenue) did not define me as self employed. There is a very clear definition of self employment, and one of being a sub contracting company, the correct definition is used to ascertain how the entity is taxed etc. Someone employed by a single director company is not self employed which is why they pay PAYE tax/ni, but some insurance companies see it differently, hence my warning to be careful when selecting an income support policy.
Matt
Click to expand...

Ahhh now I get ya...cheers. (y)
 
MatBin said:
But none of their conditions for self employment were satisfied by my situation when I took out the policy, their definition of self employment changed after policy inception and I was not notified of the change, they had no record of updating me with new t&c. Consequently my policy should have paid out in my view, although I agree in effect I could be considered self employed, their definition (and that of the Inland Revenue) did not define me as self employed. There is a very clear definition of self employment, and one of being a sub contracting company, the correct definition is used to ascertain how the entity is taxed etc. Someone employed by a single director company is not self employed which is why they pay PAYE tax/ni, but some insurance companies see it differently, hence my warning to be careful when selecting an income support policy.
Matt
Click to expand...
Surely it only matters what the insurance company defines as self employed not what hmrc says it is. I mean your contract is with said insurance company not HMRC or am I missing something? However regardless of legal and tax status, surely as the company director and employee of said company you are in control of whether you are employed or become unemployed? I would have thought a specialist product for your circumstances would be the best option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top