Payment Protection Insurance specialist Sara-Ann Burgess is lambasting the Government for urging lenders to increase their level of mortgage funding. She calls Minsters actions irresponsible and inappropriate during these recession-hit times and says more lending will only encourage greater numbers of people to sink deeper into debt.

Her rebuke comes at a time when the Treasury announced it was giving an extra £10bn of taxpayer’s money to Northern Rock to help its mortgage availability. This boost will allow £5bn worth of new mortgages to be offered this year and up to £9bn in 2010.

The Government’s encouraging other lenders to follow suit in a bid to kick-start the housing market, however Sara-Ann questions the wisdom of such a move: “Has common-sense been put on the back burner? Has the Government lost sight of what caused this recession in the first place? Lending to people who do not have the means to repay their debt should they lose their job is the key driver behind the soaring numbers of repossessions year upon year, and yet the Government wants to repeat past mistakes and lend to more people in an economic climate that’s decisively shaky.”

According to the Survey of English Housing at least 70% of the repossessions in the 1990s were because homeowners lost their income and Sara-Ann believes the Government should take note of these past statistics before undertaking new endeavours to reverse the economy’s spiralling fortunes. She says: “A call for prudent lending is to be applauded, but it’s mis-guided and too little too late. No matter how cautious lenders are, they will not be able to foresee who is going to be made redundant. No one has a crystal ball – will the optimistic borrower drawing a salary today become a jobless pessimist tomorrow? I predict these moves will store up greater problems and angst for lenders and borrowers in the future.”

The Office of National Statistics reports that on average, 2,877 workers are being laid off every day and former Bank of England economist Danny Gabay says unemployment will rise to 4 million – 13% of the workforce – during the course of the recession. The Council of Mortgage Lenders predicts 75,000 homes will be repossessed this year – 200 a day or one every 10 minutes.

Sara-Ann continues: “Is it wise to encourage further lending at a time when savings - the main source of mortgage funds - are low due to meagre interest rates and borrowers are reticent because the job market is in turmoil? If the Government is going to put pressure on lenders to release more funds into the market, there needs to be a financial safety net in place that lessens lenders’ losses and reduces the risk of mortgage arrears and potential repossessions due to job cuts.

“Payment Protection Insurance should be given, free of charge with every new mortgage – it will meet borrowers’ repayments for up to a year if redundancy occurs, and so keep a roof over their heads, whilst safeguarding lenders interests by enabling them to recoup their losses from the insurer. Now this is common sense.”

The Government has a target of 75% of the population to become homeowners, but Sara-Ann considers this to be reckless unless PPI is included in the loan equation. She concludes: “You can’t encourage people to borrow in an uncertain job market unless you provide a mechanism that pays their mortgages should redundancy occur. It’s like taking to the trapeze without a safety net.

“It’s widely recognised that borrowers and lenders alike currently do not have the appetite to take on financial risks so why ask them to do so? CML figures show that one in 53 mortgages were in arrears of three months or more in 2008 and I know PPI can help halt that slide – it’s inextricably linked to a loan and provides a win, win scenario for all involved.”

As taxpayers money continues to disappear into Government ‘black holes’, Payment Protection Insurance lobbyist Sara-Ann Burgess is calling for greater diligence and accountability from those squandering the public’s hard-earned cash.

Her calls come amidst increasing concerns that the Financial Services Authority’s consumer website ‘Money Made Clear’ – funded by the taxpayer and subscribing companies – is failing to achieve what it set out to do.

Sara-Ann comments: “The site says it ‘gives facts about financial products and services, helping consumers make an informed decision’, but I’m not convinced end-users will be able to do this as not all the information is provided up front and it expects a certain level of knowledge . For example, in the PPI choices questionnaire, only three types of PPI is offered - mortgage, loan and credit card. What about income protection? This is an option, later on, for people who say they want to purchase mortgage cover – but only then are they asked if they’d like PPI for mortgage-related bills such as utilities.

“What about people in rented or shared accommodation, do they not have utility or others bills to pay? It’s narrow-minded to assume only those with a mortgage will want income protection and discrimination against people requiring credit card or loan cover who are never made aware income protection is an option.

Also, consumers may not know which level of cover they require, which is why I believe all four policy options should be listed together, accessible to all and explained up-front on the same page or a click away from the questionnaire.

Sara-Ann concedes: “You can eventually find information about PPI but it’s buried away further into the site, so consumers will end up spending time searching for something that should be easier to access – and still there’s nothing about income protection.”

One of the key aims of the Competition Commission is to encourage lower prices and greater choice in the PPI sector, but in Sara-Ann’s opinion, the FSA is inadvertently pushing consumers back into the arms of the lenders, the very people the Commission wants consumers to distance themselves from.

She explains: “One of the questions asks respondents if they want to see products where they have to have a mortgage/credit card or loan with the company to take out the insurance. Consumers are then asked to select up to three providers. How will respondents know who to choose? The whole purpose of the table is to allow consumers to pick the brains of the FSA and PPI providers, not the other way round. Why have a seven day ban on credit providers selling PPI to their customers if you’re going to offer them up anyway?”

Once the questionnaire is completed and a list of providers appears, in Sara-Ann’s opinion, the level of detail and accompanying help sections have not been compiled with the care and diligence expected of such an organisation. She continues: “I voiced concerns earlier this week about inaccurate data and am keen to see this rectified. I’m equally concerned that consumers requiring help in deciphering the tables can click on ’how to use this table’ and a blurred image of investment bonds appears. I know this is only meant to be an example of how headings work, but the least the FSA could do is reproduce a table that bears some resemblance to what the consumer has been looking at in the first place.”

Sara-Ann concludes: “Taxpayers and FSA subscribers should know if their money is being used to produce work of questionable quality. The FSA’s remit is to regulate the market and protect consumers, but at the moment I worry their PPI questionnaires and tables are working to the detriment of consumers. I shudder to think how much money has been spent on a project that should have got things right first time.”

The Financial Services Authority is not following the Competition Commission’s recommendations to give consumers clear and up to date information on Payment Protection Insurance says PPI lobbyist Sara-Ann Burgess.

“Its PPI comparison tables list providers who no longer offer cover and detail premiums that are inaccurate,” she says. “Given the Commission has entrusted the FSA to provide data to consumers to help them make informed decisions about purchasing cover, I believe they’re letting all their stakeholders down.”

Sara-Ann’s comments follow her own investigation into what consumers will be faced with, if they use the PPI tables to shop around for cover. She recently posed as a 24 year-old looking for a £1000 a month payout for her mortgage should unemployment occur and was taken aback at the results.

“Every PPI comparison was wrong – either because the policies are no longer available or the premiums are out of date. People will be seriously misled if they rely on the FSA’s tables and this is very concerning, given it’s an organisation that’s supposed to be acting in the interests of consumers.”

Financial data specialists Defaqto are charged with researching and collating the material and Sara-Ann suggests tighter controls need to be in place to ensure their information can be trusted.

She continues: “There’s a clear problem with data verification on both sides and a mechanism needs to be in place to address this. The Commission is calling for all PPI distributors and intermediaries to provide premium costs per £100 of benefit, plus supporting information, to the FSA by April 2010, but what confidence will they have if it’s incorrectly presented?

“It’s not correct now and this is with a much smaller sample of data. These inaccuracies serve to undermine the confidence of providers and consumers and they need to be rectified immediately.”

In its January report, the Commission outlined a package of measures which were designed to introduce competition in the PPI sector and so ensure customers are treated more fairly by providers and have access to a broader range of information. A seven day ban on lenders offering PPI at the time of the credit provision was to give customers time and ability to make an informed choice and other providers a chance to compete more effectively.

However, Sara-Ann believes the PPI tables do not allow consumers to make an informed choice and neither do they allow providers to compete effectively. She concludes: “At the moment, consumers will become increasingly frustrated if they contact the companies listed on the tables. They’ll either not be able to buy the cover detailed, or if the provider does still exist, will be irritated to find the actual premium bears no reflection to what was presented. It’s creating more hassle rather than simplifying the process and I strongly suggest the FSA takes its data providers to task.”

News this week that the Halifax is no longer making its accident, sickness and unemployment cover available to intermediaries proves yet again, that large institutions are not interested in the financial well-being of their customers, says Payment Protection Insurance specialist Sara-Ann Burgess.

Sara-Ann has for years campaigned for customers to be treated fairly when it comes to the purchase of PPI and has constantly called for more affordable cover to be widely available to all. She sees this latest withdrawal of cover, at a time when people need it more than ever, as a slap in the face for the thousands who rely on intermediaries to search the market for the best deal.

She comments: “With rising unemployment, access to PPI policies that pay a monthly income if redundancy occurs is vital. It’s because unemployment is rising that providers are beginning to turn their back on customers, they don’t want to have to deal with high volumes of claims. And once one provider pulls cover, others will follow suit. I believe, however, providers should be making PPI as widely available as possible, ensuring more people have a mechanism in place to pay their monthly bills if they lose their job.”

During its investigation into the PPI sector, the Competition Commission found that mortgage intermediaries made ‘significant’ sales of policies that would pay borrowers mortgage commitments if they lost their job. The Council of Mortgage Lenders reported 32% of the 263,800 new MPPI policies sold in the second half of 2006 were via intermediaries and Commission customer research indicated consumers were more likely to trust these third-parties than anyone else. Feedback showed consumers used intermediaries for their skills in searching for good mortgages and their ability to get them a good deal with associated products, whether from lenders or independents.

Sara-Ann continues: “Providers that start to leave the market when times get tough are giving a clear message to consumers that they don’t care about them. If they had an ounce of moral fibre or were as customer focussed as they claim to be – they would stand shoulder to shoulder with other providers, weather the storm and signal that cover is available to all during times of hardship. Instead, they’re limiting the distribution of products to those who walk into a branch. It’s not making insurance accessible to all and I suggest it’s a form of discrimination.

“Given the huge PPI profit margins made by lenders, you’d think they’d be able to financially cope with an increase in unemployment claims. Clearly they’d rather reduce their customer reach, minimise payouts and keep profits to themselves.”

In its January 2009 Report, the Competition Commission calculated that the 12 largest PPI distributors made profits after tax of £1.4bn in 2006. This represents a return on equity of 490%.

The prediction from the British Chamber of Commerce that unemployment will peak to 3.1 million over the next two years looks likely to become a reality given 1.97m were without jobs at the end of December. In light of this and the Bank of England’s recent ‘deep recession’ comments, Payment Protection Insurance specialist, Sara-Ann Burgess, suggests a nationwide campaign is needed to help people at risk of redundancy protect their finances and homes.

She comments: “The figures released from the Office of National Statistics do not take into account redundancies announced in January and senior economists at the Institute of Public Policy Research suggest unemployment will rise above 3 million this year. In January, the number of people getting Jobseeker’s Allowance was 1.23 million, indicating that nearly 40% of those without jobs do not receive State support.

“Thousands are already struggling financially and worrying about how to pay next month’s bills and if they do have any savings, they’re severely depleting their funds. I fear thousands more will be in a financial crisis if they do not take out some form of Payment Protection Insurance before it’s too late.”

PPI provides monthly cash benefits for up to a year in the event of unemployment, but will only pay out if the policy is taken out well before any job losses are notified. Policyholders who were aware of any impending unemployment as a result of announcements or mergers/restructures before they purchased cover, or within four months of it being taken out, will have their claims rejected.

Sara-Ann continues: “And this is why it’s so important to purchase cover now, before the situation gets worse. Claims figures show that very few people use this insurance to help them through a crisis which means that people are either unaware of its existence, costs and benefits, or they’re not worried about the dire employment situation.

“The Association of British Insurers says 19,105 PPI unemployment claims were made in November 2008, up 118% on the previous year. But this is miniscule when you consider the number of people out of work at that time.”

The ABI figures as a percentage of 1.97m unemployed from September to December indicate that less than 1% of those who have lost a monthly wage now draw a ‘salary’ via PPI.

“This is deeply concerning,” says Sara-Ann. “All those millions of people without a financial cushion to help them at a time they need it most. Jobseeker’s Allowance is only £60.50 a week for a single person and £94.95 for a couple, so this won’t go very far in helping people meet their monthly financial commitments.”

Low claims figures at a time when unemployment is at a 12 year high can be attributed to the fact that the PPI sector has a poor reputation and people are suspicious of providers who are responsible for record volumes of complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service and have been investigated by the Competition Commission.

Sara-Ann concludes: “I’m amazed that over 99% of unemployed people are not able to benefit from monthly payouts, courtesy of insurers. Not all PPI providers should be tarnished with the same brush – there are many independents offering low-cost policies with comprehensive benefits and support services. I urge anyone currently employed to ‘seize the day’ and ensure they have a second salary source, via PPI, should redundancy occur.”

Premiums are calculated per £100 of benefit and standalone firm British Insurance charges £3.40 per £100 for unemployment cover. Anyone looking for a monthly replacement income of £500 would pay £17 a month. British Insurance has won numerous awards for its products, back to work assistance programme and service delivery and has policies for homeowners, those renting and people in shared ownership schemes.

With unrest over Government bailouts being used for bonuses this week, Sara-Ann Burgess warns consumers that another haven for taxpayers’ money – the Post Office – is not the wholly-British institution it appears to be.

Its financial services division, which offers everything from banking, loans and mortgages to credit cards, bonds and insurance, is a joint venture between the Post Office and the Bank of Ireland. Although its insurances are underwritten by a range of insurers, the Post Office is an Authorised Representative of the Bank of Ireland and as a result, customers fall under the guidelines of the Irish Financial regulator and not the UK one.

“This,” says Payment Protection Insurance lobbyist Sara-Ann, “is mis-leading and has resulted in customers complaining to the media about their investments being held ultimately in the Bank of Ireland instead of closer to home.”

She is concerned that customers are unaware of the Irish link and the fact that the UK Financial Services Authority has limited regulatory powers and asks why British taxpayers’ money is being used to support an Irish company to sell its products.

“Yet again, it appears taxpayers’ money is either not going where we thought it was or is being splashed about to support non-UK businesses. There’s no mention of the Post Office’s Irish connection in its ‘about us’ history – it talks about a 360 year plus connection with the British public and this is why so many people do business with the Post Office – it’s perceived as a British institution.”

The Post Office sells PPI and hence Sara-Ann’s interest. She continues: “I’ve been calling for total transparency within the financial services sector for years and whilst I’m not suggesting that any of its products or services are dubious, I am asking for more up-front information to be provided, so consumers know exactly who they’re dealing with.

“I’d equally like to ask the Government why it isn’t using taxpayers’ money to support British-based organisations, especially since the Treasury Select Committee Chairman and Minister for Postal Affairs, John McFall, is so keen to turn the Post Office network into a state bank.”

Sara-Ann concludes: There have been calls for the Post Office to become a ‘shop-front’ for Government services – does this mean that the ‘shop front’ will be an advertisement for Irish Financial Services and should we be looking to Ireland for our Government leadership? The ‘support your local economy’ campaign is gathering momentum and I believe this extends to financial services as well, so buy British where you can.”

News that the Royal Bank of Scotland Group plans to spend £1bn of taxpayers money on staff bonuses comes as no surprise and is another example of the arrogance of large financial institutions who are reckless with customers’ cash, says Payment Protection Insurance lobbyist Sara-Ann Burgess from specialist firm Burgesses.

Her outburst follows reports that the RBS will reward those behind the Group’s financial failure, despite predictions that losses for 2008 will be around £8bn.

The Government holds a 68% share in RBS and Gordon Brown has already lambasted the firm, saying banks should consider waiving their rights to bonuses. Chancellor Alistair Darling concedes that whilst huge bonuses should be denied, payouts to staff cannot be ruled out. Instead the Treasury has ordered an investigation into UK bank management.

Sara-Ann believes a gentle warning and probes into bank leadership is not what consumers want: “This is a clear slap in the face for the British public who have witnessed £20bn of their taxes being used to prop up failing banks. Some banks are only operating because of government intervention and given the tax-paying public are now shareholders they should have some say in how their hard-earned cash is spent.

“£1bn is obviously surplus to requirements, otherwise RBS wouldn’t be able to ‘give it away’ in profits. It could have been earmarked to help the millions suffering because of others’ ineptitude, but instead it looks as if a fair proportion will go to the very people who caused this mess in the first place.”

She continues: “How can the Government allow taxpayers money to be used as a reward for financial failure?

The only help those unable to pay their mortgage have received is the option to extend their debt over an increased period of time – these people are not getting any cash payouts. What kind of message does this give? One of clear indifference to the feelings of constituents and something I hope will be remembered by voters when it comes to the next election.”

Calls have been made for PPI to be paid for by lenders and included with the mortgage offer automatically. Sara-Ann suggests this move would be a far more effective use of ‘spare cash’ that some banks clearly have. She comments: “This would ensure mortgage payments are made, for up to year, should the homeowner lose their job and go someway to halting the downward spiral in the housing market.

“And let’s not stop at homeowners, the Government could pay PPI for those renting and in shared accommodation. Many will call this proposal farcical, but it will do more to inject some confidence in the economy than any £1bn bonus payment. It’s a measure that impacts on many, rather than a few, and gives support to those who need it most at a time they need it most.”

PPI pays a pre-determined sum every month covering a variety of financial commitments such as loans, credit card or wider household bills, if redundancy, accident or sickness occurs. Payments can go straight to the lender, or claimant, dependent on the type of policy purchased. Premiums are calculated per £100 of benefit and standalone firms such as British Insurance charges £3.40 per £100 for unemployment cover.

Sara-Ann concludes: “Barclays posted pre-tax profits of £6.08bn for 2008, but is not paying bonuses to its directors. I sincerely hope others follow its example. People are told to behave in a prudent manner, but this obviously doesn’t apply to everyone. Those who are recklessly splashing the cash must be reigned in - they’re giving the wrong signals to consumers. It appears to be OK for RBS to spend during a recession, but woe betide any customers who do the same, I doubt they’ll receive a sympathetic response. Take the £1bn off RBS and make them pay their customers’ PPI premiums.”

News that more than 900,000 or one in 12 homeowners have missed at least one mortgage repayment in the past six months comes as no surprise says Payment Protection Insurance lobbyist, Sara-Ann Burgess from specialist firm Burgesses. “It proves that the recession, or as Gordon Brown recently called it – the depression – is more severe and affecting greater swathes of society than first predicted,” she says.

According to moneyexpert.com, borrowers unable to make regular mortgage repayments increased by 95% on the same period last year, fuelling speculation that the Council of Mortgage Lenders’ estimate of 75,000 homes facing repossession over the next year is too low.

Figures released by the Financial Services Authority in January show that in the three months up to the end of September last year, 13,161 properties were repossessed – a 92% increase on the same period in 2007. It equates to 1000 families losing their homes every week or one property every seven minutes.

Sara-Ann comments: “This surge in missed mortgage repayments and home repossessions is very sad and evidences the growing number of households overwhelmed by debt. The majority of missed payments can be attributed to lost incomes and not having enough savings in place to continue meeting those financial commitments. Whilst PPI cannot help those who have already lost their jobs, it can cushion the blow for borrowers who are currently employed and worried about their job security.”

PPI will pay the mortgage and any other household bills for up to a year should a salary be lost. Premiums are charged per £100 of benefit, so a person looking for payments of £600 per month to cover bills, would pay around £20 per month.

Sara-Ann continues: “The only way borrowers can have peace of mind that their bills will be covered if redundancy occurs is by taking out a PPI policy. I make no excuses for constantly reminding people about the importance of taking out insurance in these difficult times and this mantra will continue until more appreciate that the family finances can be stabilised at a very low cost.”

Yesterday’s predicted interest rate cut, in Sara-Ann’s opinion, will do little to help those struggling to pay mortgages: “People who are already missing repayments are doing so because they do not have the income to pay their bills. Many are not drawing a salary, so won’t be able to make a payment, whatever the rate cut is - it’s going to be out of their reach.”

She also feels the huge rise in families experiencing debt problems could have been avoided if more people were aware of the benefits of PPI and how easy it is to purchase cover. Sara-Ann concludes: “Many people associate PPI with the big lenders and do not want to go though exhaustive discussions, laying bare their finances and getting confused with jargon and small print. However, PPI can be bought from independent providers who explain everything on their websites, charge far less in premiums than their High Street counterparts and in many cases offer superior benefits and service.

“I think Gordon Brown did mean to say depression in his speech to the House this week – it may be called a faux pas, but it’s a real depression for families losing their homes or facing months of worry because they cannot pay their bills. Unemployment is set to top 3 million over the next two years, so I urge people currently in work, to take out PPI, it will pay bills for up to year. The monthly premium for £600 cash back equates to a fish and chip takeaway for a family of four.”

Independent provider British Insurance charges £3.40 per £100 of benefit and has policies for people renting and in shared ownership agreements as well as those with mortgages.

Today’s interest rate cut to 1% by the Bank of England will do little to boost the shrinking economy says Payment Protection Insurance lobbyist Sara-Ann Burgess from specialist firm Burgesses.

“The only thing that will boost the economy is to increase the confidence of lenders and borrowers and the way to do this is to automatically include PPI when making a mortgage offer,” she comments.

Sara-Ann’s rationale is that the cut will further deter savers from putting more into their banks and building societies, which in turn will reduce the amount of available funds for mortgage lending. “Institutions will have less to loan to borrowers which means the housing market will not get the kick-start it needs,” she continues. “Equally, borrowers are reticent to increase their debt levels at a time when unemployment is rising so it’s a continuing downward spiral.”

This is the fifth interest rate cut since October and is at its lowest since 1951. However, Sara-Ann believes mandatory PPI is the answer: “Banks and building societies are already making huge losses because people cannot continue their mortgage payments, so why not make PPI compulsory and legislate that lenders have to include it, free of charge, with the mortgage?”

Whilst many institutions will baulk at the prospect of including PPI without passing the cost onto the borrower, Sara-Ann counters that many lenders fail to pass on the rate cuts anyway so are already enjoying improved profit margins at the expense of cash-strapped customers. She suggests lenders channel a small percentage of their profits into PPI as ultimately they will benefit – being able to top-up their coffers with insurers’ money when customers lose their jobs.

Sara-Ann explains: “This proposition makes clear economic sense – if PPI is bought on a global scale, the costs are lower and so can be absorbed by lenders who will end up making fewer losses due to loans defaulting. Every time the rate goes down, they make higher profits as very few borrowers end up with reduced payments, so why not use the increased profits to purchase PPI?

“Potential house buyers will be keener to borrow as they will be secure in the knowledge they have a financial safety net in place should they lose their job and more homes will be sold. This will act as a greater stimulant to the housing sector and so have a knock-on effect on the wider economy. There’s a far less likelihood of repossession because PPI payments are made for up to a year, so banks and building societies will regain their confidence in lending. Insurers would make payments direct to the lender, so the only loser will be the insurance industry. It’s a socially responsible move and one that should seriously be considered.”

If Sara-Ann’s argument is not persuasive enough, then sceptics need only refer to the spiralling repossession figures. The Financial Services Authority says one home is repossessed every seven minutes and the Citizens Advice Bureau witnessed a 51% increase in new mortgage and secured loan enquiries for July to September 2008. It advised on 4,760 debt problems every day last year.

Sara-Ann concludes: “I sincerely hope lenders do pass on the interest rate cut announced today - whilst it reduces borrowers’ outgoings, it will not increase savers’ coffers which is why PPI is so invaluable. It will ensure a steady flow of income goes into these institutions, courtesy of insurers.”

PPI is available from lenders and independent providers alike although where policies are not sold alongside a mortgage, they are generally found to be four times cheaper. Sara-Ann would like to see lenders source cover independently from their loans to ensure customers are given the ‘best deal’ possible.

People who fall into arrears with their council tax or utility bills could have faced even more financial hardship this year if Jack Straw had been allowed to go ahead with his proposals to increase court recovery fees in May.

Although he was recently ordered by Gordon Brown to drop his plans for a ‘recession tax’ on those summoned to court, Payment Protection Insurance lobbyist Sara-Ann Burgess from specialist firm Burgesses, is concerned that the Government will use other unethical tactics to recoup the billions of pounds of taxpayers money spent on rescuing failed banks.

She comments: “The plan was to increase the charge on those taken to Magistrates Court for not paying their council tax from £90 to £250 (up 178%)and debtors owing creditors, such as power firms who attend court for questioning, would have to pay £70, instead of £30 – a 133% increase. Following a storm of protest this bid to raise £38million failed, but it does clearly indicate that the Government will consider targeting the most financially vulnerable to help pay its debts.”

Already town halls are more aggressively chasing its debtors – last year bailiffs were used in 1.2million cases to recover debts and 2.5million households received a court summons.

Sara-Ann continues: “The only way people are going to avoid falling victim to increasing levels of debt and reduce the risk of a court summons or bailiffs on their doorstep is to recession-proof their finances via some form of payment protection insurance. It will meet a wide variety of household bills should redundancy occur and continue payments for up to a year until a new job is secured.

“I shudder to think what the next Government scheme will be to get more money out of cash-strapped taxpayers. More fines for motorists and increased taxes I suspect. Whilst I can only guess, I am confident that any extra revenue will be gained via stealth.”

Although many are sceptical of paying premiums for this type of insurance, Sara-Ann explains that job losses are now commonplace and this cover is invaluable for people who don’t have that financial cushion of six months worth of salary already in place to pay bills.

She concludes: “Everyone is at risk of redundancy and a premium of £17 per month will secure a monthly payment of £500 should the salary go. Over a year this equates to a £6000 payout, which if the premium was only paid for six months - so £102 - isn’t a bad return. It will certainly help keep the wolf from the door – and who knows what guise that ‘wolf’ will take – mortgage company, utilities, local authorities etc. I’m saddened to hear the Government even considered penalising those already in debt and worry about what new levels they will stoop to. PPI at least prevents more people falling victim to their sneaky tactics.”

Independent PPI provider British Insurance charges £3.40 per £100 of benefit for unemployment cover and has won numerous awards for its policies and the way it treats customers.