Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by IanCulverhouse, Aug 3, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Worth getting more than one?
Yes - the other thing well worth getting these days if you're on civvie street is "Loss of income insurance" Costs about Â£5.00 per Â£100.00 you wish to claim in case of redundancy or losing your job.
Lasts for 12 months in case of claiming.
Yes it is, but different products may suit different people. You should always seek the advice of someone independant from anyone offering the products (ie not just the salesman) and make sure you read all of the details on the product, not just the headline amounts.
A few key points:
If you are single, no dependants etc then your biggest exposure is to long term disability. If you are dead, there is no-one relying on you to keep them housed/fed. You should look for a product that offers good coverage for loss of limbs/disability, and not worry too much about the death benefits unless you want to make sure your parents are sorted.
If you are married or have a dependant partner and/or children, the disability risk remains, but the need to have a payment in the event of death increases. You should consider the death benefit of the PA products, but also the various life insurance products aimed at the services. PA will only pay a death benefit in the event of an accident, a life insurance policy in the event of an accident or illness.
Pay very close attention to the benefits offered for permanent total disablement, permanent total disablement (from the services), and any clauses relating to on/off duty cover and limits. That 150k lump sum may be reduced if you are only(!) disabled enough to be discharged from the army, but not so badly that you can do some other form of work afterwards. Some products also pay greatly reduced benefits if you are injured on duty, leaving you reliant on the AFCS payment in the event of an on duty accident.
Typically, the cheaper it is, the less it will pay for - you only get what you pay for.
Beofre we deployed on H6 the Bde Comd went up to Selly Oak to visit the troops there. When he came back he told a story about two lads in the same ward, both having lost a leg. One was 'PAX'ed up to the eyballs and therefore significantly better off than the other that was reliant on the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme.
So the answer - yes it bloody well is worth it. Especially if you have family which would require support if you become injured or killed.
Point to note - don't go for the cheapest cover you can find, but a firm approved by the MOD. Most civ insurers will have exclusions against injuries sustained during acts of war.
PAX is the officially sanctioned product, but bear in mind that it is a commercial product provided by a commercial company. As such there are good things and bad things about it which have been discussed at length on arrse. Personally I think it is very well worth having.
i would also recommend considering the life insurance / illness cover.
we had a guy a few years back who was diagnosed with terminal cancer in his mid-30s. he only had a few units of PAX. he got us together and advised us to whack PAX up to the max, because if you're suddenly diagnosed like him... it's the difference between a few grand, and Â£150,000 to pay off mortgage, go on a world cruise etc.
i listened. now i'm just waiting to get terminal cancer and i'm quids in
I would strongly support getting professional advice based on a thorough understanding of your personal circumstances. I would just add that it is important to watch out for companies that claim their staff are Independent Financial Advisors yet they: don't actually hold an individual qualification but operate under a generic company authority, only seem to offer their own branded plans as the best option and don't offer you the choice to pay a flat fee upfront rather than pay them a commission on each policy you select based on their advise - so watch your arcs!
He's a useful Times article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/investment/article1305701.ece
The phone numbers therein are less useful as many IFAs lack experience about the needs of a member of the Armed Forces so SIIAP is probably a better start in a search for a IFA but at least the article with give some useful ideas on what to look for/check.
Pax is AN officially sanctioned product - but not the only one. Service Life Insurance (SLI) and a number of others are out there.
Listen up to the Duke he knows his stuff.
Pax bloke well he's selling PAX, which is his job and its pretty damm good.
SIIAP Bollocks its nothing more than a self interest group.
there are plenty of Financial Services Industry folk on here covering pretty much every area of a huge industry. If anyone has a question ask it on the boards.
As for me yes I'm in the industry, yes I'll give anyone a "bit" of free help. anything after that I'll charge you a bloody great big fee.
Agreed and, in addition to his expert knowledge, given that he isn't out to do business with members of the Armed Forces he can act as an honest broker
Any suggestions on how someone in the Armed Forces can access an IFA who knows about the services by any means other than personal referral other than SIIAP?
What's the big bee in your bonnet about SIIAP members?
You also said that an IFA can charge fees or commission, and it's a fair point. But for the majority of forces clients I have, when writing a Â£20 pm policy there are understandably reluctant to want to pay a Â£250-Â£350 fee for my services. On the majority of pure protection business ( life and critical illness cover ) on smaller premiums commission always works out a better deal for the client than fees.
In addition there is not much advantage being whole of market ( able to access all insurers )over multi-tied ( using a selected range of insurers ) and many companies will have specific exclusion or premium loadings for forces.
So there is no point being able to deal with 25+ companies when only a handful are suitable for military.
I thought i would add my own experances to this: I lost a leg after fighting with an RPG (i lost), i had the full 15 units of pax and was paid the following:
Â£150,000 for loss of foot
Â£1,500 for every week i was in hospital (4 months)
Â£3,900 for the fracture of the bones in the leg.
I was in hospital one week before i was paid out, never had any issues and to be fair were helpful. I know of other who had Abacus, towerhouse watergate etc and although they have paid out i think Pax does lead the way as the payments are more. Stay clear of micky house firms- most have exclusions with regards to terrorism .
Pax may be more expensive but in these cases you really do get what you pay for.
As I'm sure you will appreciate as much as anyone, when you are posted every few years, maintaining contact with a particular IFA can be difficult, so having access to a list of MoD recognised firms is probably the next best thing after a personal referral. Is there another body recognised by the MoD consisting of firms that have plans designed to meet the demands and needs of members of the Armed Forces and that can help personnel avoid ending up with a plan with exclusions relating to war, terrorism, CBRN, aircrew, divers, special forces/duties etc?
This doesn't mean that all SIIAP IFAs are good or that nonSIIAP IFAs are bad just that it is the only body in town and you have to wonder if a firm isn't a member because they failed the entry criteria - as some have - because they don't want to pay the dues or because they just want to stick well clear. Whatever the motivation, the MoD jungle drums are that firms that aren't in SIIAP may find it increasingly difficult to gain access to military property. Firms can always do what the site sponsors and I try and do, which is influence things from the inside rather than dripping on the flanks.
Why would you need to charge so much when you can afford to do the same service based on say Â£3 a month commission from the Â£20 plan?
As I'm sure you appreciate, if you are spending an hour or two with someone as an IFA often needs to when reviewing someone's financial affairs in detail prior to giving them some advice, rather than just acting as an intermediary to enrol someone for some basic kit cover, is it not fairer to quote them both options based on the expected life of the plan/s and let someone choose for themselves? After all the FSA does expect that sort of option to be offered - at least the initial disclosure document gives a strong hint in that direction.
How can a multi-tied agent be truly 'independent'? Is it not just a little bit misleading? The give away is using the word 'tied' I think.
I am a uncomplicated former infanteer and much of your post doesn't pass the sniff test.
I'm very happy to talk about this more but if that's the case maybe it would be better in a separate thread in the finance section under the strict rules of this site on representatives of financial companies that deal with the Armed Forces rather than divert this one any more.
detail here: http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=92172.html
Apologies to all for any red herrings that are mine
Separate names with a comma.