With a heavy heart, I announce this is my final installment of the Question of Money column for The Sunday Times. It has been a rewarding experience assisting you in solving your financial challenges, resulting in over £10 million reclaimed over the past decade.

As I prepare to move on, I imagine that several corporations, including Barclays, British Gas, and Phoenix, along with the Department for Work & Pensions and HM Revenue & Customs, will breathe a sigh of relief at my departure. Starting next week, I will be dedicating my efforts to support the Hawk and Owl Trust in sponsoring nesting boxes and promoting raptor conservation throughout the UK.

Over the years, the nature of inquiries received in this column has evolved significantly, particularly with a surge in online fraud observed during and following the pandemic. Currently, my inbox includes a distressing case involving a 23-year-old who lost £106,000 to a romance scam, and an 80-year-old woman who has nearly depleted her pension of approximately £500,000. Please remain vigilant—examine any correspondence you receive (and avoid clicking on links in unsolicited emails or texts) as well as the identities of those who contact you. If you have family members who are at risk, inform their banks and help manage their finances while arranging for a phone screening service.

I want to express my gratitude to our talented cartoonist Rob Murray, whose creativity has brought humor and depth to the column each week. Most importantly, I want to thank all of you for your trust in allowing me to assist with your financial issues—it’s been a privilege.

This week, rather than addressing several new complaints, I will focus on a single, pressing case that serves as a crucial reminder for anyone purchasing insurance, alongside a couple of my previous favorite stories. Stay careful—I anticipate seeing you in north Norfolk with your birdwatching gear!

Cancer Diagnosis: Scottish Widows Denies £40k Critical Illness Claim

A 33-year-old woman facing a cervical cancer diagnosis is undergoing extensive treatment, including chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The ramifications for her life are profound.

Having held critical illness insurance for over five years—motivated by witnessing her mother’s struggle with breast cancer—she recently switched her cover to Scottish Widows via a trade union broker. However, following her cancer diagnosis, her claim was unexpectedly denied. The insurer claimed she inaccurately answered questions on her application and misrepresented her 2022 smear test results.

The smear test revealed HPV but showed no abnormal cells. She believed the purpose of the smear was to detect such irregularities, and answered that she had never had an abnormal test as her cells were normal. Moreover, she understood HPV to be ubiquitous and transient. The application process did not inquire specifically about HPV status.

Now, amidst cancer treatment and facing a chemically induced menopause, she is filing a complaint. Scottish Widows has stated that had it known about her HPV, it would not have issued the insurance and has since terminated her policy.

Feeling devastated, she insists her answers were honest and if HPV had been mentioned in the application, she would have disclosed it.

The claim totals approximately £40,000—an essential financial support for covering potential income loss and avoiding an immediate return to full-time work.

Jill’s Response

HPV comprises over 100 types, many of which are harmless. However, your test identified a high-risk type associated with cervical cancer, influencing vaccination policies for young boys and girls. The result stated high-risk HPV was detected, necessitating follow-up in a year, misleading you to believe there was no cause for alarm. Consequently, you didn’t mention it during your recent insurance application.

Upon reviewing the application recording, I noted that while you denied any health changes, you candidly discussed existing mental health conditions. Your responses were genuine, and the broker’s long list of conditions failed to include HPV. The absence of a direct question about HPV in the application form raises serious concerns.

Had you retained your prior insurance, it would have paid out as it was in effect before your diagnosis.

Scottish Widows initially denied your claim, compounding the stress of your ongoing treatment and the side effects that hinder your future family plans. However, I was informed that Scottish Widows has since decided to honor the claim.

This unexpected reversal is exceptional, emphasizing the importance of providing comprehensive health information during insurance applications. Readers are reminded to disclose all relevant details, even if they seem unnecessary.

You expressed profound gratitude, stating that knowing I would assist you offered hope during challenging times. Armed with insurance support, you can take the necessary recovery time and adjust your work hours accordingly.

Scottish Widows acknowledged, “We reviewed our policyholder’s case and took her situation into account, deciding to issue a settlement to assist her during this trying period.”

… and now I present two additional notable cases

HSBC’s Minimal Compensation for Oversee Management of £1.3m Sipp

November 13, 2016

My self-invested personal pension (Sipp) is administered by HSBC, for which I pay more than £20,000 annually for management of my Sipp alongside my portfolio of ISAs, collectively valued over £2 million.

After completing a risk assessment, HSBC allocated my pension entirely to high-risk investments. In 2008, my relationship manager suggested switching to a less aggressive risk category due to the financial crisis, a change I accepted before she departed the bank.

Subsequent managers failed to revert my investments back to higher-risk once the market improved and did not highlight the mismatch with my risk profile. Despite two assessments confirming the need for a high-risk strategy, changes were not made for nearly a year until a new manager arrived.

HSBC’s business terms stipulate that portfolio management aligns with individual risk profiles. I escalated my concerns to the Financial Ombudsman Service, but HSBC refused further discussion unless I withdrew my complaint or pursued legal action.

Jill’s Response

A reader who reached out in July 2015 felt deprived of potential investment growth on his £1.3 million Sipp. Hence, HSBC’s mere £300 compensation for delays was perceived as inadequate. After prolonged negotiations, HSBC boosted its offer to £136,394.

The reader felt this did not accurately reflect his investment losses, especially since the compensation could incur inheritance tax. Facing advanced cancer, he feared not living long enough for his children to avoid tax ramifications.

Through efforts from Question of Money, HSBC continued to honor its offer while the matter awaited the ombudsman’s decision, which ultimately increased the settlement to £172,694.

He invited me for tea with his family, expressing, “I commend Jill for her invaluable support over this period. Her wise guidance and understanding meant a lot to me.”

The Confusion Surrounding Madeline and Larry

December 1, 2019

As treasurer of my estate’s residents’ association, I noticed a £50 deposit from a person named David, referenced as “Madeline and Larry,” regularly credited to our NatWest account since September.

Initially determining the funds weren’t for association activities, I contacted the bank in October to arrange for their return.

By December, despite NatWest providing partial account details, they could not reverse the transaction. Contacting Santander, David’s bank, resulted in being redirected back to NatWest.

NatWest initiated an inquiry but indicated the amount was too low to warrant significant action. So far, David has transferred £750.

Jill’s Response

Although Santander previously could not locate David with the information available, this time they sought further data from NatWest.

After clarification between the banks, Santander could identify David, prompting him to cease his standing order and reach out to the association.

It was revealed that the monthly contributions originated from horse grazing agreements. One horse, Larry, had been sold to Madeline’s sister, who retained her original payment, leading to the confusion.

David’s intended payments were for the benefit of the residents’ association, but since Madeline lived off-site, the association was unaware of the arrangements.

Madeline’s sister opted to continue her payments while David’s initial contributions were eventually donated to the association. Hopefully, Larry remains blissfully unaware of the financial mix-up!