A question

[SupeRDel]

Well done to the answers above as the points I raised seem to have been well answered in a few of the posts

You need income insurance.

The reason that I raised the point.

My next door neighbour rides an old BMW K100. He is no fool or nutcase rider.

Two months ago he hit a deer near Market Lavington at a mere 50mph. The bike suffered minor damage unfortunately my neighbour suffered serious spinal injuries and for awhile the prognosis was not good.

I spoke to his wife a few days later and she raised the point about income insurance. Comprehensive cover may cover the bike but thats a fat lot of good if you are crippled.

She said she thought they were insured for just about anything only to discover that they were not covered for loss of income.

She also raised the point of being hit by an uninsured driver - very difficult to claim anything.

She says that it ought to be law that people have this sort if income insurance. I raised this point on the RD forum and one of the Australian members said nearly everyone had income insurance there.

If you have income insurance or accident cover then check the small print - a lot do not cover motorcycling.

Luckily my neighbour is beginning to make some kind of a recovery. He had severe bruising but is having to learn to walk again and it will be a very long process.

[Ducatista]

She also raised the point of being hit by an uninsured driver - very difficult to claim anything.

There is a company called the MIB, not men in black but the motor insurers bureau
http://www.mib.org.uk/Home/en/default.htm

They will pay for claims where the other driver is uninsured or untraceable. It may take a while for everything to get settled though, so your own fully comp insurance is still better.

She says that it ought to be law that people have this sort if income insurance.

NO !!
That's not right.
Not everyone needs this so it should not be forced on people.
Some would be happy to live off a spouse (for example).

Whilst I sympathise about the accident they have screwed up in their financial planning and are now looking for someone to blame.
It's no-one else's fault, only theirs and the suggestion is flawed.
Alan Sugar for example doesn't need it.

If there is a lesson to be learned here, it's to make sure you have proper financial planning in place in case of death, accident, sickness or redundancy.

There is of course a "safety net" insurance and that's called National Insurance, so no-one in this country needs to starve or live on the streets. However if you want more than benefits then you need insurance or an alternative income stream (which may be a spouse if you can live off one income).

I would also advise people to check what their employer offers before purchasing their own insurance.
Some employers (both of ours) provide sick pay until retirement so it pays to spend 10 minutes checking the benfits provided by your employer before forking out.

[SupeRDel]

Ah! The MiB point I was waiting for some to raise that - its very debatable wot sort of income support you will get from them.

Second point - maybe my words were wrong (law) but everyone should seriously check out the cover they have and consider income insurance.

They are not looking to blame anyone. She was merely pointing out the error that she found in all their insurance cover.
They are not fools - he is a policeman and she is a ex-police.

[Ducatista]

The MiB point I was waiting for some to raise that - its very debatable wot sort of income support you will get from them.

I agree, but I was answering the comment that it was difficult to claim anything if you are hit by an uninsured driver which is not the case. It was not clear your comment related to income.

You should not be expecting a third party to cover income (there may not be one as in the case of wildlife). You need to make your own arrangements for income (whatever that may be).

but everyone should seriously check out the cover they have and consider income insurance

Absolutely.
I just don't think it should be forced on people when there are other viable alternatives to insurance for some people.
That could include savings, living off a spouse, moving in with parents or drawing a pension early if you are 55.
I totally agree people should have plans in place, but insurance is not the ONLY way to solve the problem so should not be made mandatory by law (apart from taxes e.g. the national insurance).

She was merely pointing out the error that she found in all their insurance cover.

Err no, that's not what you said.
You said that she said that it "ought to be law" which removes choice from other people who might have viable alternatives.
The suggestion lacks understanding of what might be appropriate for others as there is an array of options of which insurance is just one.

This is either an error in their financial planning on their part OR they have been mis-sold in which case they can make a formal complaint to the comapny that sold the policy. They have recourse to the financial ombudsman which is a free and independent service if they believe they have been mis-sold. Companies are obliged to keep records these days so the first thing they should do is ask for the "compliance file" which which show what they agreed to.