Smith and Hanlon

Craig Smith & Keith Hanlon

Me and my partner moved into our current property a little over two years ago. When we met, Keith was already in the process of buying a different property, which had fallen through, so when we decided to buy our current home, the process was conducted in Keith's name, which we would later transfer to joint ownership once we had moved in. With this in mind, we opted for joint life insurance cover to secure our future should the unthinkable happen to either one of us.

In retrospect our perusal of the insurance market was less than thorough, but we did ascertain (incorrectly) that there was little difference between the major players. We opted for Norwich Union, which at the time seemed as good an option as any, and honestly completed our application form.

We received a letter from NU dated the 8th January 2001, acknowledging our application. On the 17th January, we made a call to the enquiry number 0845 845 1458. On this occasion I spoke to a customer service advisor who gave her name as Mary. Our application could not be located and we were asked to call back later. On making a second call there had been no progress in the search for our proposal and I was asked to call back early the following week. We were unhappy with this advice and I made another call on the 18th. It was at this point 'Lauren' informed me that our proposal had only been received on the 17th and to wait a few more days before calling again. We were particularly unhappy with this instruction, as we had received a letter acknowledging receipt of our proposal dated the 8th January, and we felt we were receiving the run-around. The advisor in question said she would ask someone to speak to the underwriters and then call me back.

On the 19th I spoke to a Mr King who had seen the application and said that as there were no medical queries on the form he could see no reason why this proposal should not be approved later the same day or, at the latest, Monday morning. Mr. King was both helpful and courteous and left us in no doubt that our application was soon to be finalised.

On the morning of the 22nd, I called NU again, and after the success of my previous conversation I specifically requested the assistance of Mr King. On this occasion Mr. King was curt and evasive in his response to my query. I was informed that our application would not be proceeding at this time as a questionnaire relating to our lifestyle would need to be completed and this would be sent to us within the next couple of days. Mr. King said he could not answer any more of our questions as a report also needed to be completed by our doctor relating to the medical history of my partner, Keith.

I pointed out that our application was immaculate and made known my surprise regarding the medical query. Mr. King claimed he could not discuss this with me as the report related to Keith, and when asked if there would need to be a report on my own medical history Mr. King clearly responded 'no'. I was surprised at Mr. King's disinterested tone, especially as he had been so pleasant only a few days earlier. It was at this point that Keith called the customer query line and asked to speak to Mr. King to discuss the medical questionnaire. The advisor said this was not possible but that she would ask Mr. King to call us back later the same day.

On speaking to Mr. King, we learned that not only would a medical report be requested for Keith but also for myself. We again pointed out that our proposal was straightforward and we did not understand the sudden change in attitude to our application. Keith asked why such reports were necessary when only three days prior we had been informed that our proposal was near completion. Mr. King said that he could not comment as this was a decision made by the underwriters and that we could not speak to an underwriter as no-one from that department would be prepared to speak to us about this decision.

Keith suggested to Mr. King that it appeared there was a problem with this application because we are two unrelated males sharing the same address, to this Mr King responded 'yes'. When pressed on the issue as to whether 'yes' meant it did indeed appear this way or 'yes' this is the case, Mr. King said he could not comment any further. Later the same day we received a call from Mr. King's superior. We were informed that it is industry policy to request medical reports concerning two unrelated males sharing the same address. If this is indeed policy, we were surprised that Mr. King was unaware of this and therefore unable to impart this information to us, and not only this, but we find such policy (industry or otherwise) to be deplorable and unacceptable and informed NU of our feelings.

To add insult to injury, we both received independent questionnaires relating to our lifestyle, dated the 19th January, the day Mr. King informed me that our proposal was straightforward and would possibly be completed the same day. We have since discovered that our GP was also contacted in this way with on an earlier date. Angry and confused by the situation, we wrote to NU outlining the above details and requesting an explanation. Norwich Union responded by writing to us at the address we had not yet bought, a letter, which was opened by the owner at the time. The incompetence of the organisation astounded us and we asked for our application to be withdrawn.

At this point we decided to apply for insurance through different companies and independently approached our banks. By what appeared at the time to be bad luck, both our banks approached the same insurance company with our applications on the same day. The company in question, Legal & General, wrote to us with similar documentation. We were asked to complete a lifestyle questionnaire (which, we did), we were both sent to an independent medical centre for a series of tests (including HIV), which we reluctantly (on principal) agreed to attend.

At the same time I read an article in The Guardian newspaper comparing Life Insurance companies and providing general quotations as to the premiums one could expect. This I found to be very useful as our application at the time was being processed. The article claimed that through Legal and General, a 30-year-old smoker, with cover of £100,000 could expect to pay around £11.00 per month. We were both quite happy at this as at the time, we were both under thirty (just), and although Keith still smoked, I had not for over a year.

In addition we were asking for cover less than the quoted amount so were We were understandably angry then, when the decision came back to accept our application (Legal and General, the same company as quoted in The Guardian) but that Keith would have to pay over £24 per month and I would be charged nearly £28. We were outraged at this decision, but needed life cover for the mortgage immediately and had to accept. I began to make enquiries as to why this had happened to us, and in some way I refused to play the Gay victim and suggest that it was because of sexual orientation. I did not want that to be the reason for this appalling experience.

I contacted a gay financial adviser, who was helpful. They did some investigation and contacted me to inform me that a cancelled insurance application (with NU) is in itself not good. This is flagged up on all future insurance applications and may prove to be problematic. We had no idea that this would be a problem, in addition, they informed us that our lifestyle questionnaires, in short our declared homosexuality, meant that we were now listed on the 'impaired life' register. I think that this was the most difficult point to hear of the entire process.

I am proud to be part of a strong and committed relationship, a relationship that is in all but law, a marriage. We both have good jobs, we own our own home, and we are able to renovate our home with disposable income, take dream holidays all over the world, regularly socialise with a wide circle of friends, we are in no uncertain terms luck and privileged people. How can it be then, that somewhere a committee of men (not a sexist observation but a human one) can decide that the very fabric of our being, the core of our relationship and long term happiness, is comment for corporate criticism, financial exploitation and an offensive definition of the term 'impaired life'.

The happy end to the story is that we were given the details of Chris Morgan, at Compass Independent Financial Advisers, who acted as independent insurance brokers. Keith's monthly payment is now a little over £8.00 for £65,000 mortgage cover decreasing over 25 years, whilst my own is £11 per month for £90,000 over a period of 25 years and arranged without any personal questions and HIV testings.

Craig Smith

Subscribe to the Pink Finance monthly newsletter and keep abreast of what's new on the site by clicking here. Your address will not be shared with any third party and you may unsubscribe at any time.

Please note that the articles contained within this site were written for Pink Finance and are subject to copyright. They may not be reproduced in any form without prior written permission from the editor. Graphics/images/logos and site design are by John Myers and remain his copyright. Likewise, they may not be reproduced in any form without prior written consent.