Critical Thinking Single is Best – comments from pledgers

It should always be recommended first, so in the event of a claim, both are left with no cover. Although I have ticked 'pledge your support' until my network agree, we will still have to continue recommending JL1.

My network, PRIMIS, requires that I always include a joint cover for mortgage-related plans. Despite my Level 4 diploma and 11 years of experience in protection, my professional advice often goes unheeded, even when IHT complications arise with higher sum assured. Their guideline feels inflexible, and I have consistently struggled to advocate for different approaches without success.

This is the main reason I left my network. I have paid 237 life & CIC claims in my 40 years of advising and could not countenance joint life advice.

We regularly have this exact issue, where we are recommending dual single policies, not just because it protects an individuals benefit but because it increases the value of children's critical illness cover claims and our compliance require pages of explanation for not choosing the cheapest, joint policy option.

So often we see compliance contradicting common sense and generally, as an industry we run scared of punishment rather than explaining why the compliance direction is incorrect.

CIC is a vital product against the adversity of illness especially the cancers and heart attacks that take away part of someone's life. Unfortunately for years compliance has seen the cheapest at the most important issue, however quality when it comes to CIC is paramount. What is the point in having a cheap plan that doesn't cover all types of cancers or heart attacks or other key conditions. Compliance is ran by No win no fee solicitors, and as such we as advisers need to be documenting the cheapest, but also the best quality and why if not best quality selected why. In this new age of Consumer Duty and unforeseen harm, is it now the case that compliance looks for you to advise the cheapest, they are actually making you neglect unforeseen harm. We advise, we are not order takers, nor are we just a sales person, we are advisors 1st and foremost, and looking after our clients has always been at the forefront of our processes from our 1 on 1 discussion's with our clients. CI destroys lives financially, your safe place taken away, the worry of illness, the worry of potential death, the worry about the kids and what happens to them if your not there, with CI the last thing a devastated house hold needs to think about is how will we pay for our mortgage. The funny thing about a CIC is that life goes on for everyone else, but for your client it stops its a whole new way of life to adopt to, we are very blessed and honoured that we are asked to join or clients along the pathway of life in one of their most exciting times in life, surely we owe it to them to ensure they know, and are educated to what life can look like when it all goes wrong with a CIC. We currently have 4 cic claims going through all of which have now been honoured and all for different degrees of Cancer, thank God I had the courage and strength to recommend the best quality cover. In all of what is going on today, we advisers really need all the encouragement we can get, as this job is exceptionally difficult, with little thanks until something goes wrong. Perhaps Networks, Providers and regulators, take a beat, step back, look at just how difficult a job we do and the stress and anxiety regulation and compliance is taken on advisors through out the industry. I very pleased to see CI expert taking a positive roll in this issue of joint v individuals, but also more must be done for advisors on the advise process and on the understanding fully of consumer duty. Are we going to be facing a judge in a few months time in the same way car finance is , where a regulator is snub by a judge of the land. More help is urgently needed for advisors is we are to maintain the high levels of customer services we provide.

I was thought the benefits of having 2 single policies in the early ninety's. Always done it, always will.

I have always maintained it is much better advice to recommend 2 single policies as opposed to one joint one. The only reason for a joint one is to save a minimal few pounds and keep compliance happy. Every other aspect favours 2 singles - potential double pay out, adult & children. Ongoing policy if a claim is made by one party etc...

It became evident to me in early 2000s that 'Joint Life' was NOT cheap, & that 'Individual Life' X 2 is far more beneficial to a family with dependents, as the impact of a lost or disabled parent didn't mean having to try & secure fresh cover for the surviving parent!

This is a worthy cause; it ultimately comes down to educating clients, rather than acting as a comparison site, taking time to understand needs, the solutions to help protect their world and the cost implications, most clients would understand why single plans would make more sense.

I have always believed in the value of single life policies, and have advised that way for over 19 years! The best outcome and overall value for my clients is always my priority!

I don't see how a narrow Compliance view of today's snapshot of customer circumstances and a small saving on price fits with the Consumer Duty requirement to address foreseeable poor outcomes over possible term of 25 years or more. That includes the rigid idea that cover taken when buying a mortgage should be used to entirely clear the loan and nothing else. There's no point in the bereaved or critically ill becoming mortgage-free if there's no money to pay for anything else.

Compliance processes are directly steering this output and behaviour and we need some urgent reviews of D&N statements and advice guidelines to help advisers deliver common sense good outcomes for customers.