Canadian Money Forum banner

61 - 80 of 116 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
from what I understand, calm was told the insurance was mandatory or required.
I don't think I was told that it was a term of the loan that I purchase insurance.
It was sort of recommended that I do.
Sort of suggesting that it was worth the "investment" of paying for insurance. Or a prudent thing to do, considering my age.
I never gave it a second thought. .... No sweat. It was not going to bankrupt me. I kind of figured it to be the cost of doing business.
I never thought I would ever need to collect on the policy.
I had sewer problems at my house and it had to be repaired pronto.
Sewer was entering my house. I needed to hire a backhoe and dig up my front yard.
I was in a hurry and I was desperate. The banksters knew this.

I just think that no bankster should of even mentioned life insurance to me when they knew my age was 69.

That was the original sin. (Plus me being too trusty and not hiring a forensic guy to dissect the policy.)

Why didn't they sell me a policy just to cover one year of the 5 year loan?

Obviously, nobody would purchase insurance and pay a five year premium while knowing it was only good for one year and not the full 5 year loan duration.

I think the banksters were so embarrassed for what they had done, that when at the meeting (after my twin had died) they told me not to worry about the loan because it was insured. It was not until many weeks after the meeting that I got notice that the policy was actually invalid because of my age. Those at the meeting knew my age.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,307 Posts
I don't think I was told that it was a term of the loan that I purchase insurance.
It was sort of recommended that I do.
Sort of suggesting that it was worth the "investment" of paying for insurance. Or a prudent thing to do, considering my age.
I never gave it a second thought. .... No sweat. It was not going to bankrupt me. I kind of figured it to be the cost of doing business.
I never thought I would ever need to collect on the policy.
I had sewer problems at my house and it had to be repaired pronto.
Sewer was entering my house. I needed to hire a backhoe and dig up my front yard.
I was in a hurry and I was desperate. The banksters knew this.

I just think that no bankster should of even mentioned life insurance to me when they knew my age was 69.

That was the original sin. (Plus me being too trusty and not hiring a forensic guy to dissect the policy.)

Why didn't they sell me a policy just to cover one year of the 5 year loan?

Obviously, nobody would purchase insurance and pay a five year premium while knowing it was only good for one year and not the full 5 year loan duration.

I think the banksters were so embarrassed for what they had done, that when at the meeting (after my twin had died) they told me not to worry about the loan because it was insured. It was not until many weeks after the meeting that I got notice that the policy was actually invalid because of my age. Those at the meeting knew my age.
You know, the way you add info in dribs and drabs and use terms like, 'I never gave it a second thought' really say a lot about how you tend to think and do business.

It also sounds now like you and your brother did not need a loan, only you did. Was he just a co-signer? If so, you are now telling us that you thought you could get out of paying the outstanding balance on YOUR loan because your co-signer died. Is that right?

Your brothers account being used to pay on his outstanding Visa balance is a non-issue as I have said and that part of your story is irrelevant really other than to show once again that you didn't understand that's normal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
You know, the way you add info in dribs and drabs and use terms like, 'I never gave it a second thought' really say a lot about how you tend to think and do business.
The house was a joint ownership.
In true fact, I may of been a co-signer with my twin.
I did not care. I would of killed by grandma to get the loan.
It was his bank. I dealt with the CIBC.
The loan was house improvement. Sewer repairs.
I admit ..... I should of been just as suspicious with the bankers as you are with my story here.
Are you a bankster or an economic terrorist?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,307 Posts
The house was a joint ownership.
In true fact, I may of been a co-signer with my twin.
I did not care. I would of killed by grandma to get the loan.
It was his bank. I dealt with the CIBC.
The loan was house improvement. Sewer repairs.
I admit ..... I should of been just as suspicious with the bankers as you are with my story here.
Are you a bankster or an economic terrorist?
And again you use a term 'I did not care' that reflects on you and no one else. The words someone uses when speaking or writing tell us a lot about that person.

I suggest you start 'caring' about contracts you sign from now on calm and learn from your past mistakes. The bank staff may have made mistakes in how they dealt with you, perhaps they should have realized that you are a 'don't care' type of person and tried to protect you from yourself but in reality, that is not their job it is YOUR job.

I have no connection to any bank etc. calm, only as a customer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,765 Posts
So we get mail all the time from banks that want to sell us insurance. We are 74 and 69 years of age.

If you read the terms in the fine print, we would pay premiums and never collect the insurance benefit until we paid for it in full.

Do the banks not know they are selling crap to unsuspecting clients ? Of course they do. They just don't care.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
RBC - Monthly premium rate is about 10 bucks per month.
I see (Today) where the document says you get Zilch after you turn 70 years of age. I did not even look at the pages as I signed them. I trusted the economic terrorist (bankster) not to swindle me.

(PDF Document)

I did not object or investigate because I did not care.
When you are borrowing 10 thousand and then add some small item like 10 bucks for insurance.
Do you really care? Such is the cost of doing business.

Like I said ..... the original sin, ..... the bank should never of suggested a policy where I agreed to pay 10 bucks per month over a 5 year period (in advance) while knowing I was not eligible for coverage after the first year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,765 Posts
Last week we co-signed a truck loan for our son, because he could get the 0% financing with us on the loan.

The finance guy asked if we wanted disability insurance. There was no mention of any restrictions and we already had a pile of paperwork to plow through.

But I knew from experience we would pay premiums and never collect because we wouldn't be eligible for some reason.

Reading the fine print is one thing. Understanding it is another. It is written by lawyers so many people don't understand the full consequences.

Oh gee.........didn't our agent explain that to you ? Oh well........nothing we can do now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,307 Posts
Like I said ..... the original sin, ..... the bank should never of suggested a policy where I agreed to pay 10 bucks per month over a 5 year period (in advance) while knowing I was not eligible for coverage after the first year.
NO, the 'original sin' was YOU signing a policy agreeing to pay $10 per month over a 5 year period which would not cover you after the first year!

It is YOUR job to know what you are signing for. You really do need to try and understand that calm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
NO, the 'original sin' was YOU signing a policy agreeing to pay $10 per month over a 5 year period which would not cover you after the first year!

It is YOUR job to know what you are signing for. You really do need to try and understand that calm.
is RBC saying that the premiums should have been collected for 5 years? Or that the premiums should have stopped after year 1 but continued in error? It’s my understanding the premiums should have stopped. And what’s this about paying insurance premiums in advance? Premiums should be charged monthly and be added to the regular loan payment amount.

if there is no coverage, there should be no premiums. Selling insurance to a 69 year is not the problem...some customers may want it. If 69 is bad, is 68 ok? How about 66? 61? 55?

the policy also allows for a 30 day cancellation, which I suspected. That’s a pretty decent consumer protection. Perhaps we need more independent oversight of sales practices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,260 Posts
My guess is that if the poster spent half as much time speaking to RBC about this issue in the first place as has been spent complaining about the issue on this forum, it would probably have been resolved by the bank.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,668 Posts
^ I don't see anything wrong with his complaint on this forum with the banks' shortfalls (and UNethicalness) so that the "UNprejudiced Others (the fishes)" on this forum can learn from calm's admission of his "sin of not bitching to the banks to refund his premiums" for a non-existing policy they sold him on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,668 Posts
NO, the 'original sin' was YOU signing a policy agreeing to pay $10 per month over a 5 year period which would not cover you after the first year!

It is YOUR job to know what you are signing for. You really do need to try and understand that calm.
.. then what's the bankster's job? Take-in your money and when you do REALLY complain, get some other 3 banking officers present to witness your argument with them?

Seriously, according to LTA, the customer is ALWAYS wrong 'cause he's the dummy. Except for LTA of course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,307 Posts
is RBC saying that the premiums should have been collected for 5 years? Or that the premiums should have stopped after year 1 but continued in error? It’s my understanding the premiums should have stopped. And what’s this about paying insurance premiums in advance? Premiums should be charged monthly and be added to the regular loan payment amount.

if there is no coverage, there should be no premiums. Selling insurance to a 69 year is not the problem...some customers may want it. If 69 is bad, is 68 ok? How about 66? 61? 55?

the policy also allows for a 30 day cancellation, which I suspected. That’s a pretty decent consumer protection. Perhaps we need more independent oversight of sales practices.
If you read all that has been posted Money172375, you will see that we have never been told what actually happened as far as how much was paid and for what time periods. The reason we have never been told is because calm doesn't actually know the answers. He just knows that he tried to claim and was denied.

Maybe we should discuss the moral question related to this issue. You own a house jointly and so take a loan jointly for a necessary repair. your co-owner dies and you then try to claim on the loan insurance for the outstanding balance.

Should you not just try to claim for half perhaps? That was your co-owners share, not the total amount. Is it morally right to try and claim for a debt YOU owe when your co-owner dies? Is your indebtedness not still valid?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,307 Posts
.. then what's the bankster's job? Take-in your money and when you do REALLY complain, get some other 3 banking officers present to witness your argument with them?

Seriously, according to LTA, the customer is ALWAYS wrong 'cause he's the dummy. Except for LTA of course.
Tell me Beaver101, do you sign things without knowing what you are signing? It is not a question of what is the bank's job, it is a question of what is YOUR job. Someone cannot make their own responsibilities disappear by simply blaming someone else.

By his own admission, calm says he didn't care, didn't pay attention, just wanted to know, 'where do I sign to get the money.' For all we know, he was told the insurance will only cover you for the first year and the premiums will be cancelled after that. By his own admission, he does not know if he paid 5 years of premiums or not.

IF the bank did make a mistake and take premiums for 5 years, we don't know if they did, but even if they did make that mistake, it does not mean the fault is ALL theirs. It is not a question of ONE party being at fault. It may be BOTH parties made mistakes but the ONE thing we do know for sure is that calm made a mistake in not KNOWING what agreement he was signing up to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,668 Posts
If you read all that has been posted Money172375, you will see that we have never been told what actually happened as far as how much was paid and for what time periods. The reason we have never been told is because calm doesn't actually know the answers. He just knows that he tried to claim and was denied.

Maybe we should discuss the moral question related to this issue. You own a house jointly and so take a loan jointly for a necessary repair. your co-owner dies and you then try to claim on the loan insurance for the outstanding balance.

Should you not just try to claim for half perhaps? That was your co-owners share, not the total amount. Is it morally right to try and claim for a debt YOU owe when your co-owner dies? Is your indebtedness not still valid?
.. did it ever occurred to you that the (higher) premiums charged to him would cover both owners of the loan (aka joint premiums) regardless of who dies first? I don't suppose the bank or you would give him 2 coverages for the price of one or better yet, give him a discount? Talk about your own moral justification of claiming for half only (of what?) ... what a joke.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,668 Posts
Tell me Beaver101, do you sign things without knowing what you are signing? It is not a question of what is the bank's job, it is a question of what is YOUR job. Someone cannot make their own responsibilities disappear by simply blaming someone else.
... no need to spin it. You still haven't answered the question: what is the bankster job in this case when the error was discovered?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
There is somewhat of a discount for joint insurance policies....

”Joint life coverage is calculated by multiplying the cost of single coverage for the eldest insured borrower by 1.7. Provincial sales tax will be added to your premium where applicable.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,668 Posts
There is somewhat of a discount for joint insurance policies....

”Joint life coverage is calculated by multiplying the cost of single coverage for the eldest insured borrower by 1.7. Provincial sales tax will be added to your premium where applicable.”
... even it's "somewhat of a discount for joint insurance", both him and his brother was "supposedly" covered or falsely covered. And yet LTA is suggesting on his high moral principles, calm should have be claiming only half of the insurance ... for the loan. I'm in tears from LMAO with LTA's response 'cause the insurance doesn't even exists!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
... even it's "somewhat of a discount for joint insurance", both him and his brother was "supposedly" covered or falsely covered. And yet LTA is suggesting on his high moral principles, calm should have be claiming only half of the insurance ... for the loan. I'm in tears from LMAO with LTA's response 'cause the insurance doesn't even exists!
I would not of minded if the banksters told me that I was only allowed half the insurance.
That would of been Okay with me.
Half or no half is not the issue with me.
The banksters should not of even talked about insurance with me when I was 69 and the policy was invalid at 70.
They could of given me the loan without insurance.
It is not as though the law said they had to insure the loan.
If the banksters had not suggested it to me, I probably would not of even thought about it.
It was an act of over-sell.

We were both the same age. (Identical twin brothers)
 
61 - 80 of 116 Posts
Top