Critical Thinking Single is Best – comments from pledgers

In my view all providers should be offering this. I’ve had many clients that need more cover later on and can’t get it because of their health. It’s a no brainer !

There is never much difference in cost for double the amount of cover and this is more likely to help customers in the future!

I believe it is best advice for couples.

It is neither in clients best interests, it's not cost effective and represents poor advice to only recommend joint life policies. Given that almost 50% of marriages end in divorce which would then also involve rearranging life and protection cover, usually at a vastly increased cost, this cannot be the right outcome for a client. There are many other reasons as well but this alone should suffice for recommending single life plans.

If consumer duty was really about best customer outcome, then 2 single polices would be the default. Joint cover for a tiny saving over 2 single policies is not the best value for the client. 2 single policies gives you double cover for less than double the price. Also allows for life to change and 2 people to separate for any reason.

I always recommend single contracts, much better value and flexibility.

Best advice for clients - they should be able to choose without advisers steering to joint policies as compliance have an issue.

By having single plans, means that if one client makes a claim the other will still have their cover intact.

It is much, much more advantageous for a couple to have 2 individual policies as: 1. Very little difference in price. 2. Potential double the cover. 3. If a claim is made by one client, the other client still has cover. 4. If joint and a claim is made, the other client may now have existing medical conditions plus.

The drawback of joint life insurance is that when the policy pays out, the surviving partner loses all remaining coverage. If the survivor wishes to maintain insurance—for instance, to support the couple's children or cover final expenses—they will need to apply for a new policy, which will likely come with higher rates.

It's better value for money for the clients. It provides individual cover, and in the event of a claim, the other policy holder's cover is not affected.

I have examples of writing policies both ways. A joint policy where a claim was made by one applicant for a full payout for a policy started 8 years ago. Now I need to find cover for the other applicant, the premiums are so much more expensive! I arranged 2 individual policies for another customer, they have separated and are each able to continue their individual cover at the premiums arranged 5 years ago.

Seperate policies are needed more importantly for underwriting benefits. If one applicant has an existing health issue they may not be able to obtain as comprehensive cover as the other applicant hence why would we arrange lesser cover for them by arranging a joint policy. I have 3 current examples of this ongoing - different providers are more appropriate for different clients.

When it comes to critical illness I feel extremely strongly that we shouldn’t be recommending the cheapest. I would rather give each individual the best chance of making a claim. A customer should have options NOT have to be led by compliance, a joint policy is just an easy option to tick a box and for advisers to earn commission rather than actually providing solid advice. I am passionate about looking after my customers & doing the right thing for them.

I've seen the benefits for clients.

Keeping things simple to understand keeps everyone happy.

Whilst clients buy a policy today, the value of it lasts for a long period of time. That value is amplified with two single life policies over a joint option.

Treating customers fairly and consumer duty thereafter, asks all advisers to focus on clients as individuals. Taking care of joint needs is absolutely acceptable, but it’s rare that the benefit is greater on a joint basis - with that in mind, I would encourage everybody to ensure they are looking at all options when talking to clients with a joint situation.

A client should be presented with ALL the opportunities not focused down one route.

When has the cheapest ever been the best value?

Alan Lakey has taken up the mantle where most or all networks have failed us in challenging the FCA and compliance. Any of us who have had a client payout on single life policies can morally hold our heads up high.

Should have campaigned for this a long time ago, definitely the way forward.

It’s just simple common sense to recommend 2 single life plans over a joint one. Negligible difference in cost for so many more benefits. Used to do this loads in the past but compliance drives the opposite.

With so many people facing future uncertainty, debt, medical issues, single cover provides additional support in times of hardship. You can't predict how vulnerable or the need in decades to come and could find yourself left in a vulnerable position, single cover makes financial sense.

As an industry, we have a duty to provide solid advice that leads to great customer outcomes. Just because something is what we have always done, does not mean it is what we should always do. We need to encourage and empower advisers, networks and the industry to make the right decisions for the people and families they serve.

Single covers mitigate many risks that a joint policy can prevent. Single (dual) is most definitely better than a joint policy.

Every case is individual, so how a 'blanket' policy for either of the circumstances (Joint vs 2x single policies) is in itself not very consumer friendly. This being said, you should explain the benefits and downsides of both scenarios and not assume one size fits all.

I have been a protection advisor for over 20 years and I have helped many of my clients make claims, it is so important that clients have single policies, if they have a joint policy it can cause all sorts of issues in the event of a claim or if one clients health changes they may well not be able to make any amendments to the policy or arrange a new policy. Also they can claim on the children's critical illness cover on their own individual policies.

It just makes sense, particularly in a world where flexibility to allow for change is a priority.

I am passionate about this topic through personal experience. I wish I had been advised to take a single policy rather than joint in my twenties, it would have better protected me through life changes.

Best advice is not about what is the cheapest but also what offers the best value for money.

7 years ago I set up a Joint life with CIC for a couple this year the client got pancreatic cancer and passed away in September 2024, the policy paid out a 100%, but know left the husband without any cover, and he has since developed high blood pressure, so I had to do a new policy for him know with a loading! had I done 2 single policies it would have worked out much cheaper! because he know has a loaded premium because of his health! so yes the joint life was cheaper 7 years ago, but not after a claim, so how can a joint life have been the right thing to do, once there is claim and the policy has CIC attached its not the right thing, but two single plans are the best option!

I approach advice with a rational mindset, so let’s start with the main argument for joint life cover: cost. Yes, it’s true that a joint life policy for £100,000 over 10 years will have a lower monthly premium than two individual policies. For clients facing genuine affordability issues, a joint life policy might be a viable compromise to secure necessary coverage, such as for a mortgage. However, it is this advice that needs careful justification, as it undeniably offers a lesser level of coverage that is available.

The notion that joint life policies offer 'better value' than two single life policies is fundamentally flawed. Here’s why: with two single policies, you’re paying around 5-10% more (if that), but you’re gaining double the coverage—two potential payouts rather than one, since a joint policy only pays out once and ends on the first claim.

It’s evident to me that those who create these compliance rules may lack the real-life perspective of an adviser. When a partner passes away or faces a critical illness, the surviving individual is at their most vulnerable. This is precisely when they need the peace of mind that protection provides. A joint policy undermines that by terminating coverage when it’s needed most and requiring new underwriting, a daunting process, especially if any medical issues have developed since the policy was taken out as we could then face the even more awkward chat of explaining that the policy you had 2 days ago before your partner died is now going to cost 50% more or even worse get declined. As advisers, we see hundreds of clients and therefore have the ability to provide new clients with foresight, explaining to clients why higher-quality policies hold greater long-term value. I think I would be far more likely to receive a compliant in the future because someone now cant get life cover following their partners death and cessation of their joint policy than someone complaining that now their partner is dead my recommendation for two single polices has allowed them to maintain piece of mind during the hardest time of their life, forgive me if I am wrong but they might even be grateful for my original advice.

The industries primary focus should be helping clients understand the value of comprehensive coverage and, if necessary, working back to a solution that fits their budget. It’s frustrating that advisers are criticised or even penalised for recommending what we know to be the better, more protective choice. Thankfully, as a directly authorised adviser with a knowledgeable compliance team, I have the ability to offer quality advice. But I see many colleagues, especially those under appointed representative firms within networks face repercussions for recommending single life over joint life policies, often with little support. It’s disappointing to see an industry that should prioritise client welfare instead restrict advisers from offering what we know is truly best.

The real value in life and Critical Illness cover is ensuring full protection when it’s needed most, which is why single life policies are worth the small extra cost for true peace of mind. You shouldn’t have to defend this viewpoint.

I have always recommended separate CI policies. Joint policies restrict a claim to the first person diagnosed with a critical illness. The 2nd person is then left with no cover and at that point could find it significantly more expensive to buy cover and in some circumstances can sometimes be uninsurable.

Own life, own benefit. Future insurability is never guaranteed. 2 x singles = double the kids cover.

Single life policies offer greater flexibility, double payout potential, customisable cover, control over beneficiaries, and tax planning advantages. They adapt to individual needs over time, protect against relationship changes, and simplify claims. In contrast, joint policies limit options and risk leaving the survivor uninsured.

Has it really taken this long? Perhaps I’m guilty for not shouting about this louder. I took the position on behalf of Clark UK four and half years ago to ensure our advice was single first. Having seen many situations where first death policies leave a gap that cannot be filled by the surviving life, or complicated and expensive separations of cover causing more issues than it’s worth, I’m glad to see more people follow and congratulate CIExpert on championing this campaign.

It is important to ensure that the right protection is arranged for the right reasons, not because compliance has an opinion that doesn't fit what would be good advice.

It is obvious to me that the flexibility to offer different levels of cover, with both lives potentially having different insurers and to change over the lifetime of the policy outweighs any small difference in price.

Individual policies offer significant benefit considering trust planning, future flexibility and value for money. For a nominal difference in cost, single plans should be recommended over a joint plan.

We have always championed 2single life policies. It provides client’s with more flexibility and a better outcome.

Why on earth would anyone wish to take joint critical illness cover when double cover is available for a minimal additional monthly premium. Surely the reason for dealing with an adviser is for advice not "one size fits all"!

I had experience of this myself when I lost my wife last year to cancer, I left me having to look for cover myself, it was fortunate that I was in good health otherwise I wouldn't have been able to get it. Had I have taken two singles would have had a policy still in force for myself and it probably would have been cheaper in the long run because at 55 years of age my new cover was quite expensive

As the campaign sets out I believe two single plans offer better value for money at minimal extra cost. Also increased flexibility in the event of relationship breakdown.

Protecting a future event is the whole point of insurance. Individual plans should be the norm.

We rarely recommend anything other than single life critical illness policies. We are now directly authorised so can make the recommendations to the clients that we know are right for them, however from previous experience being part of networks, know that there are compliance departments that treat this as not being the best advice and insist this needs to be justified.

Single life cover is simply the best outcome for our customers.

2 single life policies is much better value for money than 1 JLFD policy.

With the exception of Joint Life Second death policies for IHT planning, I have yet to hear a compelling case for a joint life policy over two single policies especially for Critical Illness cover.

Cheapest is generally not best, in any industry.

Better Value (cheaper is not always best) Flexibility, with marital splits as one prime example. In the event of a claim, the surviving spouse / partner is still covered. Better Quality - Going with different insurers for medical reasons (one might be good for client A but applying exclusions to client B, whereas another insurer might not apply these exclusions. One insurer might be rating higher for BMI for example. Sometimes cheaper (with menu plan discount) Sometimes different insurers offer better terms for medical reasons and can be significantly cheaper than joint cover if you are going with individual insurers. On both deaths, children could be significantly better off financially.

This is best advice for the client. Value for money, allows for changes in circumstances, separation etc.

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.