General Accident attacks 'Which?'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.GENERAL Accident has attacked Consumers' Association allegations that its advisers are selling products based on the amount of commission they pay rather than their suitability for the consumer.
The latest edition of the consumer magazine Which? surveyed 30 financial advisers in the south of England and in Wales.
Ten were tied agents, 10 were banks or building societies and 10 were independent financial advisers. The magazine sent out two researchers with differing requirements to find out about the standard of advice.
Which? said the advice was biased by the amount of commission earned on the product sold. One of the researcher's needs would have been met by term insurance, in particular by pension-linked term insurance - the most tax-efficient type.
The researcher clearly stated that he wanted insurance only until his children were grown up. According to the magazine, General Accident, the independent financial adviser Chris Leach, Midland Bank Principality, Reliance Mutual Save & Prosper and Yorkshire Building Society offered whole-life contracts.
These contracts cover you until you die and often pay far larger commission than term insurance.
However, General Accident rejects the implication of the article. It pointed out that the researcher did not in fact receive a recommendation from one of its salesmen. It also said that its whole-life product did not, as implied by the article, pay the salesman more commission.
Peter Hales, assistant general manager, said: 'To suggest a company gives wholly inappropriate advice which is commission-driven is irresponsible and misleading, particularly when the consumer looks to the Consumers' Association to provide accurate and factual information to help the decision- making process'.
Which? said it was standing by the findings of its researchers. General Accident has written to the Consumers' Association with a view to trying to sort out the situation.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments